Skip to main content

Full text of "Eusebiana : essays on the Ecclesiastical history of Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea"

See other formats


























IT has been my habit for some years to give 
occasional courses of lectures on the Ecclesiastical 
History of Eusebius. The following Essays are based 
on material collected for that purpose. 

I have to thank the editors of the Journal of 
Theological Studies and Hermathena for permission to 
make use of articles published in those journals. 
The Essays on the Hypomnemata of Hegesippus and 
on the Use of Volumes of Tracts by Eusebius are 
expansions of two notes which appeared in Herma 
thena nine years ago (1902). With the former has 
now been incorporated an article entitled Hege 
sippus and the Apocalypse , printed in the Journal 
of Theological Studies for April 1907. The Essay on 
the Heresy of the Phrygians is reproduced from the 
latter journal (July 1908), and that on the Chrono 
logy of the Martyrs of Palestine from Hermathena 
(1908) in both cases after careful revision, and with 
some additions. 

In passing the present volume through the press 
I have received much help and encouragement from 
my friends. Among these I would specially mention 
Dr. L. C. Purser, who contributed the note on the 
Rate of March of a Eoman Army which is printed 


as an Appendix to the fifth Essay ; the Lord Bishop 
of Ossory, who, while he was still my colleague at 
St. Patrick s Cathedral and in the University, was 
kind enough to read the Essays before they were 
printed ; Professor Newport J. D. White, who per 
formed a similar office with the proof ; Mr. H. 
Montgomery Miller, who examined a rare book for 
me in the British Museum ; and my former pupil, 
the Eev. E. G. Sullivan, who pointed out a serious 
mistake in the Essay on the Martyrs of Palestine, all 
trace of which is now, I hope, removed. To all 
these, and to others, to whom my obligations are 
recorded in footnotes, I desire to express my grati 

My thanks are also due to the Delegates of the 
Clarendon Press for undertaking the publication of 
my book. 



Conversion of St. Paul, 1912. 




THE Hypomnemata OF HEGESIPPUS .... 1 
APPENDIX: The Remaining Fragments of the 

Hypomnemata 98 





tine 179 



Ecclesiastical History 211 

APPENDIX I. The Eate of March of a Eoman 

Army, by L. C. PURSER, Litt D. . . .235 

APPENDIX II. The Authorship of the De Mor- 

tibus Persecutorum . 237 




THE EAELIEE FORMS OF THE Ecclesiastical History 243 


OR REFERRED TO ...... 292 



BY some writers Hegesippus has been styled the 
Father of Church History . Others, anxious to reserve 
this honourable title for Eusebius, have drawn attention 
to the fact that the last of his five Memoirs 1 contained an 
account of so early an event as the martyrdom of James 
the Just, and from this infer that his work was * nothing 
more than a collection of reminiscences , and quite 
without chronological order and historical complete 
ness . 2 On both sides it seems to be tacitly assumed 
that Hegesippus composed what at least aimed at being 
a history of the Church. And this was the opinion of 
St. Jerome. Hegesippus , he writes, vicinus apostoli- 
corum temporum et omnes a passione Domini usque ad 
suam aetatem ecclesiasticorum actuum texens historias, 
multaque ad utilitatem legentium pertinentia hinc inde 
congregans, quinque libros composuit sermone simplici. 3 
But Jerome gives no evidence, except in this sentence, 
that he knew more of Hegesippus than we ourselves may 
learn from the work which in so many cases appears to 
have been his only source of information as to early 
Christian writers, the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius. 

1 It is only in recent times, I believe, that this word has come to 
be used as the equivalent of urro/ii/^/iara, which it appears to me to 
represent very inadequately. But, as it has received the sanction of 
such high authorities as Lightfoot, Hort, and Westcott, 1 have thought 
it convenient to retain it. 

2 M c Giffert, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. i, pp. 81, 198. 
a De Vir. III. 22. 


And the remark which, has been quoted seems to have been 
only an expansion, quite after Jerome s manner,, of the 
words of Eusebius, In five treatises he composed memoirs 
(vnofjLVTUJLaTLa-d^vos!), 1 in a very simple style of writing, 
containing the uncorrupt tradition of the apostolic 
doctrine (/c^pi/y/zaroy). in which there is nothing which 
necessarily implies a historical work. Let us see, then, 
what Eusebius really tells us as to the nature of the book 
which Hegesippus wrote. His most important statement 
occurs, in the immediate vicinity of that now referred to, 
forming the closing sentence of H. E. iv. 7 and the 
opening words of the next chapter. After giving some 
account of Saturninus and Basilides, and of Carpocrates, 
{ the father of the Gnostics, he proceeds : Nevertheless, 
in the time of the heretics just mentioned, the truth 
again called to her aid many champions of her own, who 
made \var against the godless heresies, not only by viva 
voce refutations, but also by written demonstrations. 
Among these (kv TOVTOIS) flourished Hegesippus. After 
a few sentences devoted to him, Eusebius passes on to 
Justin Martyr. This description leaves no doubt that 
the work of Hegesippus was not primarily a history. It 
was a defence of the Faith against the attacks of heretics, 
and specially of the Gnostics. But it was more than this. 
That Hegesippus, like his elder contemporary Justin, 
argued against heathens, as well as against heretics, may, 
I think, be safely inferred from a sentence quoted inciden 
tally by Eusebius, with a view to fixing the date of the 

1 H. E. iv. 8. 2. Valois translates Trapaboviv {iTro/^/Marto-a/zeyos by 
4 historiam complexus , which is quite arbitrary. I should add that 
vicinus apostolicorum teinporum appears to represent eVi rfjs Trpco-rqf 
TO>V anooToXav yevo/jifvos diaSoxrjs (H. E. ii. 23. 3), which Rufinus renders 
qui post ipsas statim primas apostolorum successiones fuit . Perhaps 
the words should be translated who ivas born in the period imme 
diately following the age of the Apostles . 


writer. He writes thus concerning those who at the first set 
up idols : To whom they erected cenotaphs and temples, 
as is done up to the present time ; among whom is also 
Antinous, the slave of Hadrian Caesar, &C. 1 And in the 
course of his argument he gave an exposition of primitive 
apostolic teaching to which he himself steadfastly adhered. 2 
The Memoirs then were an Apology for the Faith 
against unbelievers, for orthodoxy against misbelievers. 
Now, in disputing with the Greeks, if our writer used 
the arguments which form the stock-in-trade of the 
second-century apologists, he would not draw much upon 
ecclesiastical history. Against the Gnostics also there 
was much to be said which was purely theological, though 
here there was a historical argument, upon which 
Hegesippus, like other controversialists of his age. laid 
stress. The non-historical portion of the Memoirs, in fact, 
must have included the greater part of the work. Let us 
suppose that the argument based on the early history of 
the Church was only reached in the fifth Memoir? and 
we have at once an explanation of the facts that Eusebius 
does not expressly refer to the first four, and that the 
martyrdom of St. James was narrated in the closing 
division of the work. "We may thus defend Hegesippus 
from the charges which have been made against him, of 
want of method and arrangement. It is true that our 
defence obliges us to give up speaking of him as a 
historian, and as the * Father of Church History ; but to 
do this is only to cease calling him what he did not, as it 

1 H. E. iv. 8. 2. 

2 //. E. iv. 22. 1. * He has left a very full account of his own 

3 That in the fifth Memoir Hegesippus contended against Gnostics, 
and that the argument was not wholly historical, may be gathered 
from Photius, Bill. 232. See Appendix VI. 

B 2 


seems, claim to be, and what no one who had seen his 
work claimed for him. 1 

Our thesis, then, is that the first four Memoirs contained 
few, if any, allusions to the history of the Church. This 
will become a highly probable supposition if we can 
show that the historical passages quoted by Eusebius, 
the exact source of which is not stated, are, for the most 
part, drawn from the fifth division of Hegesippus s work. 
This, I think, will be found to be the case. We can, as 
I believe, reconstruct nearly the whole of two long 
passages of the fifth Memoir, the greater part of which 
Eusebius, after his manner, has cut up into fragments, 
and inserted where it suited him in his History, 2 and 
which include all the extant fragments of the writings of 
our author which have a direct bearing on Ecclesiastical 


The earliest extract from Hegesippus is found in H. E. 
ii. 23, and contains the account of the martyrdom of 
James the Just, first bishop of Jerusalem. It is printed 
in the Appendix to this Essay. 3 This is the only passage 
quoted by Eusebius of the position of which in the work 
of Hegesippus he gives us explicit information. It is 
expressly stated that it came from the fifth Memoir. 

In the passage as given by Eusebius there are many 
repetitions which suggest either that he took it from a 

1 Eusebius distinctly states (H. E. i. 1. 3) : Trpwroi vvv T 
firiftdvTfs old riva pf]p.rjv KOI arpi/3?} levai odov fTTi^fipovfjifv. On the other 
hand, the title HyTja-imrov l&Topia, which occurs in the sixteenth century, 
was probably taken from a manuscript copy of the Memoirs. See 
Zahn, Forschungen znr QescMchte des neatest. Kanons it. der altkirchl. 
Literatur, vi. Teil, Leipzig, 1900, p. 249, note. 

2 So he quotes nearly an entire chapter of Tertullian (Apol. 5), 
H. E.ii. 2.25; iii. 20; v. 5. 

8 Appendix III c-e. 


manuscript containing a corrupt text, or that Hegesippus 
was a very unskilful writer. 1 But it has all the appearance 
of having been transcribed in its entirety. There is no 
evident indication that Eusebius has omitted any part of 
it. We shall find, nevertheless, when we consult another 
writer who knew and read the Memoirs, Epiphanius, 
bishop of Constantia, that this appearance is delusive. 
For he brings to our knowledge some sentences which 
must have belonged to this passagej and of which 
Eusebius takes no notice. 

Before attempting to prove this it is necessary to assure 
ourselves that Epiphanius had direct knowledge of the 
Memoirs of Hegesippus, or at any rate that for what he 
knew of them he was not entirely dependent on Eusebius. 
This fact for that it is a fact I hope to show cannot be 
established beyond controversy from any express state 
ment in his writings ; for he never mentions Hegesippus, 
and though it is highly probable that he more than once 
refers to the Memoirs by name, in doing so he gives them 
a title which is not assigned to them by other writers. 

It is quite certain, however, that several passages of his 
Panarion are based on portions of the Memoirs quoted 
verbatim by Eusebius ; and a careful examination of 
those passages gives us reason to believe that in writing 
them Epiphanius used a text of the Memoirs which 
differed considerably from that which was known to 
Eusebius. He has. for example, in Haer. 78. 7 a descrip 
tion of James the Just which is plainly borrowed from the 
fragment now before us. This will be obvious to any one 
who compares the two together. 2 It is only necessary to 
call attention to one clause in which his indebtedness to 
Hegesippus is less evident than elsewhere. He writes 

1 See the notes in Schwartz s edition of the History. 

2 See Appendix III c, e. 


that James ; was a Nazoraean, which being interpreted is 
holy . Now in the Memoirs as quoted by Eusebius the 
word Nazoraean does not occur. What according to 
him Hegesippus said was, He was holy from his mother s 
womb, he drank not wine and strong drink, neither did 
he eat flesh, a razor did not touch his head, he did not 
anoint himself with oil, and he did not use a bath. That 
the greater part of this sentence might be fairly epito 
mized in the statement that James was a Nazoraean 
(i. e. Nazirite) many will agree. That Epiphanius thought 
so is clear. For in another place, after quoting part of it 
almost as it stands in Eusebius In a bath he never 
washed, he partook not of flesh he adds the comment, 
* If the sons of Joseph knew the order of virginity 
and the work of Nazoraeans, how much more did the 
old and honourable man (sc. Joseph the father of James) 
know how to keep a virgin pure, and to honour 
the vessel wherein, so to speak, dwelt the salvation of 
men ? l Now it will be observed that in Epiphanius the 
information that James was called Obi las is given near 
the beginning of the passage, immediately before this 
reference to his asceticism. In. Eusebius it is lower down, 
after the account of his prayers. 2 

Let us glance at the statement as it appears in Eusebius s 
text. It runs thus : Sid ye TOL rr]V VTrep^oXrjy Trj? 
(TVVTJS avTov e/caXerro 6 SIKCILOS KOU cw/?Xi ay, o kvrw 

TOV Xaov, KOLL SiKCuoa-vvri, a>y oi TrpotyrJTai SrjXovviv 
avTov. Several facts rouse the suspicion that the 
text is corrupt in this place. That James was named the 
Just was already said, and enlarged upon, only two 

1 Hae) . 78. 14 el yap oi iraldes TOV lo)(r^<p rjdeicrav rrapdevias TCL^LV KOL 
Ntto>pai &)i/ TO epyov, TTOO-CO ye /uuXXoi/ 6 Trpeo-ftvTf]? KOI ri /zio? avrjp fj&fi 
(puXarreii TrapBtvov dyvrjv KOI Tip.av TO O~KVOS, evda TTOV 
(rcarr/pia ; 

7. See Appendix III e. 


sentences higher up ; the explanation of the title here 
given is mere tautology l he was called righteous because 
of his righteousness ; further on, the word biKaiocrvvrj, 
whether it be taken as another name of James, as 
Schwartz s punctuation seems to suggest, or as a second 
translation of Oblias, is almost certainly wrong; and 
finally 110 satisfactory explanation of the allusion to the 
prophets in the last clause has ever been offered. Now 
in Epiphanius, Haer. 78. 14, there is a passage which is, 
at any rate in part, a paraphrase of the opening sentences 
of our fragment. 2 In it we find the words 81 V7rep/3o\r)i> 
ev\a/3La$. They evidently correspond to Sid ye TOL rr]v 
v7Tp/3o\r]if 7779 SiKaioo-vvr)? avrov in the sentence just 
quoted; for the two phrases are not only strikingly 
similar, they occur also in the same position, immediately 
after the notice of James s habit of prayer. But Epipha 
nius differs from Eusebius in two respects. He reads 
evXafitias instead of SiKaioo-vvrjs, and he connects the 
clause, not with the statement that James received the 
name of the Just , but with the assertion that he was 
a man of prayer. So taken it yields admirable sense. 
James prayed unceasingly 3 because he was a man of 
much piety. There can be little doubt that here Epi 
phanius had access to a better text of Hegesippus than 
Eusebius. We can give a good account of the difficulties 
raised by the remainder of the sentence as read by 
Eusebius if we follow him in other matters. 

We may suppose the passage, as Epiphanius knew it, to 
have run somewhat as follows : (4) OVTOS tKaXeiro oo/3Ai ay, 
o kcrriv iXXrjvio-Ti Trepi 0^(77,0) y ol 7rpo(/)fJTaL SrjXovdLV Trepl avrov, 

1 Eusebius avoided the tautology by paraphrasing (Dem. Ev. iii. 5, 

p. 116), 8ia TO. TIJS cpTT,s TrXeopefrrq/zarn. 

2 Appendix III c-e. 

3 Perhaps we should rather say, for a reason that will appear later, 
with prevailing power . 


KOL (Li>Ofj.d(rQr] VTTO iravrav SiKaios . . . ( 6) KOL fj.6vos L<rr)p\To 

/y TQV VaOV rjVpL(TKTO T KZlfieVOS . . . O)? a7T(TK\r]KtVai TO. 

yovara, . . . Sia ro . . . alreicrOai afao-iv TO) Aao> ( 7) 8ia Tr]v 
vTrep/BoXrjv TTJS vXa/3ia$ avrov. If some of the words here 
given from 4 were transferred to the end of those taken 
from 7, and others repeated at the same place, the passage 
would assume the form 6 oVo/jao-fle*? VTTO Travrav SLKCCIOS . . . 
Sia TTJV v7Tp/3oXr)i> 7779 evXaptias avrov. e/caAerro cw^Afe, o 
kcrTLV \\rj^L(TTi7rpLo\ri,a)s OL7rpo<f)f)rai KT\.,Kal SiKaios. The 
change of evXa/Seias into SiKaioo-vvTjs, and the connexion 
of the clause in which the word occurs with what follows 
(leading to the insertion of ye TOI), are now easily explained. 
The further removal of SiKaios to an earlier place, and the 
insertion of SiKaioo-vvrj, are no doubt attempts of scribes 
to improve the logical nexus of the sentence. 

One other point must be noticed. Epiphanius explains 
Oblias as meaning re^oss which is equivalent to Trepjox*?- 
Thus he vouches for the genuineness of the latter word. 
But he omits the words TOV Xaov which follow it in 
Eusebius s text, and which thereby fall under suspicion. 
They were probably the gloss of a reader who took <o/3A/y 
to be a transliteration of DV bs V. 1 Assuming that they are 
a later addition to the text, the passage of the prophets 
referred to by Hegesippus was probably regarded by him 
merely as an illustration of the application of the word 
TrepLoxn to James. It may be suggested that he had in 
view Isaiah xxxiii. 15 f. in the version of Symmachus : 

o? kv SLKOLLO(rvvrj . . . avrbs kv vijrrjXoTs 
, a)? Trepio^al ireTp>v TO vfyos avrou. 2 

1 Reading perhaps J>j3Xia/i. 

2 There is nothing chronologically impossible in the use of the 
version of Symmachus by Hegesippus. That one who quoted the 
Gospel of the Hebrews (Eus. H. E. iv. 22. 8) should also refer to a 
translation of the Old Testament by an Ebionite is within the bounds 


It is perhaps already clear that the text used by Epi- 
phanius differed considerably from that quoted by Euse- 
bius in this passage, and was freer from corrupt readings. 
It may be added, as a further proof of its comparative 
excellence, that it presents a more satisfactory arrange 
ment of the clauses. In Eusebius the order is : James 
was called the Just , he was an ascetic, he had priestly 
privileges and was constant in prayer, he was called the 
Just and Oblias. In. Epiphanius, on the other hand, the 
names by which he was known are first fully dealt with, 
and thus the way is opened for a description of his cha 
racter, which proceeds without interruption. 

Now it is evident that if Epiphanius used a better text 
of the Memoirs than that which is preserved in Eusebius s 
extracts, he cannot have depended on Eusebius for his 
knowledge of them. He must have had either another 
series of excerpts, or more probably a complete copy of the 
work itself. 

Two other passages which point to the same conclusion 
must now be examined. 1 

In Haer. 27. 6 Epiphanius discusses the chronological 
difficulty involved in the statement that Clement was 
appointed bishop of Rome by the Apostles Peter and 
Paul, though he was not first but third in the succession. 
His explanation is that Clement resigned the bishopric, 
and resumed it after the episcopate of Linus and Anen- 
cletus ; and in the course of his argument he appeals to 
a passage in Clement s Epistle to the Corinthians : He 

of probability. Compare Diet, of Christ. Biog. iv. 748 f., s. v. Sym- 
machus (2). 

1 On them see Lightfoot, St. Clement of Rome, i. 328 ff. ; Harnack, in 
Sitziingsberichte d. k. preuss. Akad. d. Wissemch. 1892, pp. 639 ff. (re 
printed in his Chronologic, i. 180 ff.) ; Zahn, Forschutigen zur Gesch. d. 
NTlichen Kanons, vi. 258 ff. 


himself says in one of his letters, I withdraw, I will 
depart, let the people of God remain at peace. And 
Epiphanius adds, For I have found this in certain 
memoirs (eV THJI 770/^77 //arto-/^??). 1 Epiphanius therefore 
did not quote Clement at first hand. From what source 
then did he take this excerpt ? When we bear in mind 
that perhaps Hegesippus himself, 2 and certainly Eusebius, 3 
called our Memoirs by the title v7rofj,vrjjj,aTa, and that the 
latter applies to them the cognate verb vTrofj.vrjpaTigea Oai* 
Lightfoot s suggestion that the same work is here desig 
nated by the word vnofjLvrnj.aTL(Tp.oi is very probable. And 
its probability is increased when we remember that 
Hegesippus certainly gave some account of Clement s 
Epistle in his Memoirs: 

In a subsequent passage Epiphanius writes of James 
the Just, For he was Joseph s eldest born and consecrated 
[as such]. Moreover, we have found that he exercised a 
priestly office according to the old priesthood. Wherefore 
it was permitted to him to enter once a year into the Holy 
of Holies, as the law enjoined the high priests in accordance 
with the Scriptures. For so it is recorded concerning 
him by many before us, Eusebius and Clement and others, 
Nay, he was allowed to wear the (high priest s) mitre on 
his head as the afore-mentioned trustworthy persons have. 
testified in the same memoirs (vTrofj.vrjfj.aTia-fjLo is). 

Now of the various statements here made about James , 
only two that he was consecrated 7 and that he was 
permitted to enter the Holy of Holies can be traced to 

1 The translation of this and the next passage quoted from Epipha 
nius is that given by Lightfoot, 1. c. 

2 H. E. ii. 23. 8. See Appendix III e. 

3 H. E. iii. 23. 3 ; iv. 22. 1. See Appendix V d. 

4 H. E. iv. 8. 2. r> H. E. iv. 22. 1. See Appendix V a. 
Haer. 29. 4. See Appendix III c. 


7 fiyifurpfvos, equivalent to ayws in //. E. ii. 23. 5. 


the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, and both of them 
appear there in an extract from Hegesippus. 1 None of 
them are found in the extant writings of Clement of 
Alexandria. And independent evidence will be produced 
presently that all of them came from the Memoirs of 
Hegesippus. This is in fact antecedently probable, since 
Hegesippus is named by Eusebius as his main authority 
for St. James, 2 and is also used by him as supplying 
information about other relatives of our Lord. 3 And the 
word more suggests a veiled reference 
to that work. 

The special importance of these two passages lies in the 
fact that, if they have been correctly interpreted, at least 
in the former Epiphanius claims first-hand knowledge of 
the Memoirs. It will soon appear that the second of them 
has a direct bearing on the extract from the Memoirs 
with which we are now concerned. 

If it be admitted, as a result of the foregoing argument, 
that Epiphanius had before him the Memoirs or a catena 
of passages extracted therefrom, independent of Eusebius, 
we can with the help of his Panarion considerably extend 
our knowledge of Hegesippus s work. If we find Epipha 
nius making statements obviously borrowed from frag 
ments of the Memoirs embedded in the Ecclesiastical 
History of Eusebius, and in the same context making 
other statements intimately associated with them, though 
not vouched for by extracts in Eusebius, we are entitled 
to conclude, with such reserve as may be necessary, that 
the authority for the latter is a portion of the Memoirs 
not otherwise known. Let us take some examples. 

In Haer. 78. 7 we have two passages, one of which we 
have already shown to be founded on the excerpt now 

1 Appendix III c, d. 2 H. E. ii. 23. 3. 

3 H. E. iii. 11 ; 20 ; iv. 22. 4. See Appendix III g-i, IV f, h, k. 


before us, 1 while the other will hereafter be proved to be 
borrowed from a later section of the Memoirs? The latter 
of these is immediately followed by a sentence about the 
first wife of Joseph and her children, 3 which leads up to 
and is immediately followed by the former. It may reason 
ably be inferred that this sentence, like the two between 
which it stands, is taken from the Memoirs. It is true 
indeed that elsewhere in this chapter Epiphanius gleans 
information from the apocryphal Protevangelium of James-, 
but from it the information given in this sentence could 
not have been derived. It records that Joseph s wife was 
of the tribe of Judah and that she had six children, 
facts which are not mentioned in the Protevangelium. 

To the description of James succeeds an argumentative 
passage, which occupies the remainder of the chapter, 
and then comes (Haer. 78. 8) 4 an enumeration of the 
children of Joseph by his first wife and other particulars 
not contained in the Protevangelium. These may on 
similar grounds, but with less confidence, be referred to 
the Memoirs. 

The description of James in Haer. 78. 7 begins with 
words to which nothing corresponds in the text as given 
by Eusebius : He (Joseph) had therefore as his first-born 
James. For like reasons this clause may be considered 
as borrowed from the Memoirs. The inference is con 
firmed by the passage already quoted, which claims for the 
statement the authority of the vno^vrujLaTLa-^oi of Eusebius, 
Clement, and others. 5 It is there associated with the 
statement that James was sanctified (^ymo-^e^oy), which 
corresponds with Hegesippus s he was holy (aytoy) from 
his mother s womb . 

1 Appendix lllc. 2 Appendix IIIj ; see below, p. 35. 

3 Appendix III a. 4 Appendix III b. 

5 Above, p. 10. Appendix III c, d. 


In Haer. 78. 14 l we are told that James wore the mitre 
a statement which the passage just referred to has 
already led us to ascribe to Hegesippus and that in 
answer to his prayer rain descended in a time of dearth ; 
and these statements are followed by information, evi 
dently drawn from Hegesippus, that he did not wear 
woollen garments, that by his constant prayers his knees 
had been hardened like the knees of camels, that he was 
called the Just , and that he did not partake of flesh. 
This is succeeded by the observation, not found elsewhere, 
that he did not wear sandals. 2 The inference suggests 
itself that the first two and the last of these sentences 
came from the same source as the others, the Memoirs of 
Hegesippus. It is confirmed by the fact that in the same 
chapter there is an account of the martyrdom of James 
taken from Hegesippus. 

Elsewhere (Haer. 78. 13) 3 Hegesippus s enumeration of 
the ascetic practices of James is reproduced, upon which 
a few sentences follow mainly taken up with statements 
to the effect that the sons of Zebedee adopted a similar 
mode of life, and that James was called the brother of our 
Lord because he was the son of Joseph, who became the 
husband of Mary under compulsion, 4 and then the remark, 
in part agreeing with words in the same context given by 
Eusebius, only to this James was it permitted to enter 
once a year into the Holy of Holies, because he was a 
Nazoraean, and took part in the office of the priesthood 
(fjLtjjLixQai TTJ Upwrtivfl). This points to the fact that in the 
Memoirs mention was made of the exercise of sacerdotal 
functions by James. In a passage already quoted 5 the 
L are given as the authority for this. 

1 Appendix III c-e. 2 Ibid. 

3 Appendix III c, d. 

4 This is from the Protevangelium. 5 Page 10. 


We have now reasons of varying force for believing 
that we have recovered from the Panarion of Epiphaiiius 
no less than seven passages not quoted by Eusebius. 
They contain the following statements : 

1. That by his first wife, who was of the tribe of Judah, 
Joseph had four sons and two daughters. 

2. His sons were James, born when he was about forty 
years old, Jose, Symeon, and Judas, and his daughters 
Mary and Salome. After a widowhood of many years he 
took Mary when he was about eighty years of age. 

3. James was his first-born. 

4. James did not wear sandals. 

5. He exercised priestly functions. 

6. He wore the mitre. 

7. At his prayer the heaven gave rain. 
To these we may perhaps add 

8. That he was appointed first bishop by the Lord. 
Now it is plain that we shall hold the opinion that 

these statements came from Hegesippus with more con 
fidence if it can be shown that they may be placed in 
contexts with which they obviously cohere, that they do 
not interrupt the continuity of Hegesippus s periods. 

Of the first two little need be said. They evidently 
serve suitably enough as an introduction to the whole 
passage in connexion with which they appear in Epipha 
nius. From the nature of their contents no. 2 may be 
assumed to follow rather than to precede 110. 1. No. 3 of 
course gives no fresh information. But it may be regarded 
as a separate assertion of Hegesippus, not only because it 
appears twice in Epiphanius, the word TTPCOTOTOKOS being 
used in each case, but also because it is connected with 
no. 1 inHaer. 78. 7 by the particle ovv, and closely linked 
with the description of James s mode of life both there 
and in Haer. 29. 4. The argument seems to be : James 


was the eldest son of Joseph ; being therefore the first 
born of such a household he was, as we might expect, a 
man of holiness. 

The omission of no. 4 by Eusebius may be due to the 
corrupt state of the text of his exemplar. It fits in well 
with the details that are given of James s asceticism. 

Nos. 5 and 6 are naturally taken together. They might 
well introduce the statement that James had access to the 
Holy of Holies, with which they are expressly connected 
by Epiphanius. 1 

Epiphanius puts no. 7 after the notice of the wearing 
of the mitre by James and before the statement that he 
wore linen garments. That may be very nearly its true 
place. But perhaps it stands most fitly after the state 
ment that he asked forgiveness for the people. If we 
insert it there, as an example of the efficacy of his prayer, 
and suppose that it was followed by the words Sia TTJV 
vTreppoXrjv rf}$ evXafieLas avrov, which almost certainly had 
their place at the end of the section, we have a most 
interesting parallel to Heb. v. 7, he was heard for his 
godly fear . 2 

As to no. 8. It seems likely that Hegesippus, who 
gives further on a full account of the election of Symeon 
to the bishopric, would have told something about the 
appointment of James. And an examination of the 
opening words of the section relating to him quoted by 
Eusebius lends colour to the supposition that something 
of the kind was recorded immediately before them, which 
has been omitted. To the words SiaS^raL rr\v cKKXTjo-iav. 
indeed, I have observed no exact parallel elsewhere. In 
similar connexions the most common formula in Irenaeus, 3 

1 Haer. 29. 4 816 *m. 

2 o? ... derjo-fts re KCII iKfTijpias . . . npoo-evfyKas Kal elaaKOva-dfls OTTO TTJS 

. 3 Three times, ap. Eus. II. K v. 6. 2, 4. 


the anonymous writer against the Montanists, 1 and 
Eusebius 2 is &aflexercu (&e5earo) 3 r/V riva, the person 
who last held the office or privilege referred to being in 
the accusative. But another construction occurs fre 
quently in which the office is in the accusative, the name 
of the previous incumbent being given in an earlier 
clause, e. g. SiaSexerai TT)V ^TTLO-KOTT^V AQ\JLVQS^ The word 
KK\rj<r[a does not of course denote an office ; but since 
Hegesippus certainly regarded James as the first bishop 
of Jerusalem, we seem justified in taking it here as a rough 
equivalent of 77 kinarKOTrr] rfjs KK\r](Tia$ or 6 Qpovos rfjs 
tKK\r](TLas. In all the passages referred to above SiaSexe- 
o-Oai involves the notion of succession ; it does not denote 
merely receiving office. And the predecessor is always 
named. Hence we may translate The brother of the 
Lord, James, succeeds to the oversight of the Church . 
But who was his predecessor ? He need not, 5 and cannot, 
have been a bishop. Epiphanius says, quite distinctly, 
and apparently on the authority of Hegesippus, that he 
was the Lord himself, and that by Him James was 
appointed to the episcopate. 6 The addition of a few words 
to the text of Hegesippus, as Eusebius gives it, would be 

1 Once, ap. Eus. H. E. v. 17. 4 TOVS OTTO Moiravov . . . rivts . . . 

2 Thirty -two times, H. E. i. 7. 3 ; ii. 8. 1; iii. 13 (bis); 14; 15; 
21 (bis); 26. 1; iv. 4 ; 5. 5; 14. 10; 19; v. Praef. 1 ; 22. 1 ; vi. 6; 
8. 7 ; 10 ; 21. 1, 2 ; 23. 3 ; 26 ; 28 ; 29. 1 ; 39. 1 ; vii. 1 ; 27. 1 ; 28. 3 ; 
32. 1, 2, 24, 30. And so Africanus ap. H. E. i. 7. 12. 

3 The aorist is found in Iren. ap. Eus. //. E. v. 6. 4 ; Anon. 1. c. ; and 
Eus. H. E. i. 7. 3 ; iii. 26. 1 ; vi. 6 ; vii. 32. 2. 

4 H. E. vii. 14. I have noted twenty-one examples : i. 9. 1 ; ii. 24 ; 
iii. 35 ; iv. 3 ; 5. 5 ; 10 ; 20 ; v. 5. 8 ; vi. 11.4; 21. 2 ; 29. 1, 4 (bis) ; 
34; 39. 1 ; vii. 10. 1 ; 14 (bis) ; 32. 4, 29, 31. 

5 H. E. ii. 24 Trpooros- /zfra MapKoi> . . . r^y fV *A\eai>8pei a Trapoi/a ay 
\winvbs rrjv \eirovpyiav SiaSt^erat. Annianus was first bishop, iii. 14. 

6 Haer. 78. 7. See Appendix III c. Cp. the Menology quoted below, 
p. 44, note. 


sufficient to convey both these pieces of information. 1 
But if Hegesippus wrote this Eusebius would probably 
have regarded his statements as unhistorical, if not blas 
phemous. Hence we can readily account for the fact that 
he never refers to Hegesippus as a source of information 
in regard to the appointment of James. For this he 
prefers to depend on Clement of Alexandria, according to 
whom James was elected bishop by the Apostles Peter, 
James, and John, who did not claim this glory for them 
selves. 2 But this statement is at variance with the 
intimation of Hegesippus that James exercised co-ordinate 
authority with the apostles. 3 If we abandon the supposi 
tion that Hegesippus said what Epiphanius seems to 
impute to him, we must, I believe, accept the alternative 
theory that he said nothing on the subject of James s 
appointment, which does not commend itself as probable. 
And it is at any rate certain that Eusebius was not ignorant 
of the view that James was appointed bishop by the Lord. 
In one place he describes him as having received the 
episcopate of the Church of Jerusalem at the hands of the 
Saviour himself and the apostles . 4 Is he not here making 

1 Cp. H. E. i. 9. 1 CK &ia6r)K(t>v HpepSou TOV irarpos, iiriKpicrtms re 
Kaicrapos AuyoiVroi , rrjv KOTO. louSauov ftcunXfinv 6ieearo [6 Ap^eXaoy], 

2 H. E. ii. 1. 2f. See also ii. 23. 1, where Eusebius is clearly not 
relying on Hegesippus. 

3 H. E. ii. 23. 4. See Appendix III c. By the way of parallel compare 
such passages as H. E. iv. 14. 10 MdpKos . . . <rvv KO.I AOVKI W aSeXxpu 
diadcxerai. The fact that Hegesippus describes James as ruling with 
the apostles appears to me fatal to Zahn s contention (pp. 271 ff.) that 
Clement derived his statement from Hegesippus. It may be added 
that, if he did, it is hard to understand why Eusebius should have 
quoted Clement rather than Hegesippus as his authority. 

4 H. E. vii. 19 TOV yap lctKa>/3ou Bpovov, TOV Trpoorov TT)? 
fKK\rj(rias TYJV fTTKTKoiTrjv Trpos TOV <ro)TT)pos Kai T>V aTrocrroXcoi; V 

KrA. My attention has been called to this passage by Mr. C. H. Turner, 
Journ. of Theol. Studies, i. (1900) 535 f., where reference is also made 

1353 C 


an attempt to combine the statements of Hegesippus and 
Clement ? 


We turn next to another passage which Eusebius states 
that he transcribed from Hegesippus, and the opening 
sentences of which run thus (H. E. iv. 22. 4) : l 

And after James the Just had borne witness (fj.apTvpfj- 
o-ai), as did also the Lord, for the same reason, again (wdXiv) 
the son of his paternal uncle, Symeon the son of Clopas, is 
appointed (/ca0/orarai) bishop ; whom all put forward as 
second [bishop] since he was a cousin of the Lord. On 
this account they called the Church a virgin ; for (yap) it 
was not yet corrupted by vain teachings. 

The text of this passage presents features which suggest 
that Eusebius has not transcribed his source correctly, or 
that he has tacitly omitted some sentences which were 
essential to a full understanding of those which he has 

We notice first the statement that again (irdXLv} 
Symeon was appointed bishop. Since it cannot be sup 
posed that Symeon was made bishop twice the word 
again must, if the text is sound, refer to the appointment 
of James the Just. But if his appointment was mentioned 
at all by Hegesippus it must have been in a much earlier 
part of his narrative so far back, it would seem, that the 
word again would not naturally be used in reference to 
it. 2 Indeed we have found reason to suppose that Hege- 

to Clem. Recog. i. 43 as stating (probably after Hegesippus) that James 
was appointed bishop by Christ. 

1 For the Greek see Appendix IHg-i, 1. 

2 Rufinus and the Syriac translator seem to have felt the difficulty 
of rraXiv, for both of them ornit it. The clause has been rendered so 
as to mean that again one was appointed bishop who was a cousin of 
the Lord, a translation which is sufficiently disposed of by Lightfoot 


sippus represented the designation of James as so entirely 
different in its character from the designation of Symeon 
that the two could hardly be connected by the word irdXiv. 
According to him, if we are right, he was promoted to 
the episcopate not as the result of an election, but by the 
personal act of the Lord. We may suspect then that 
some words have here fallen out of the text, among them 
being the verb with which -nd\iv was connected. 

The next sentence also causes considerable difficulty. 
The phrase on this account hangs in the air ; for the 
mere fact that Symeon was unanimously elected to the 
episcopate cannot account for the Church being called 
a virgin. Zahn, it is true, will not admit this. The 
unanimous election he holds to have been the outward 
sign of the unity of the Church, and that unity to have 
been the justification to Hegesippus of the title ; virgin .* 
But to interpret thus, I venture to think, is to read into 
the final clause of the first sentence what must have been 
clearly expressed if the phrase on this account had 
reference to it. Moreover Symeon was not elected to the 
bishopric by the unanimous vote of the Church ; but this 
will be made clear in the sequel. Valois cuts the knot by 
emending to JJL\PL TOVTOV. Heinichen prefers to follow 
Stroth, and talks of the badness of Hegesippus s style, 

(Galatians\ p. 277) and Zahn (p. 237). Lightfoot himself translates 
naXiv next , which is not satisfactory. Zahn thinks that TraXtV may 
introduce the second of two events which are not identical in their 
circumstances, but merely resemble one another, citing as examples 
Matt. iv. 8, Rom. xv. 12, Mark xv. 13 (see vv. 3, 11), Mark iii. 1. The re 
semblance between the appointments of James and Symeon was that 
both were relatives of the Lord, the one a brother and the other a 
cousin. But, apart from other objections, this seems to assume that 
James, like Symeon, was appointed because of his kinship to Christ, 
of which there seems to be no indication. 
1 Op. cit,, p. 237. 


which is perhaps hardly fair. But a solution lies close at 
hand, so obvious that I can scarcely imagine that no one 
has hitherto suggested it. "What is to hinder us from 
supposing that Eusebius has omitted a passage, not rele 
vant to his immediate purpose, before the words on this 
account ? 

We seem then to have some ground for supposing that 
in the quotation now before us Eusebius omitted two 
portions of the text of Hegesippus. It may be urged, 
indeed, that this would not be in accordance with his 
usual method of citation. When he quotes two passages 
from an early writer which are not consecutive, he usually 
introduces the second with some such phrase as TOVTOVS 
8e /itO Tpa 7TL(/)epL Xtywv. But this is not an over 
whelming difficulty. 1 Nor is it unreasonable to suppose 
that Eusebius was guilty of so quoting Hegesippus as to 
leave his expressions without meaning. He does the same 
thing with other writers. 2 But our conjecture will be 
made much more probable if we can supply, from other 
parts of the History, the passages, or a considerable part 
of them, which we suppose Eusebius to have here omitted. 
This we shall now endeavour to do. 

It is first necessary to rescue for Hegesippus two frag 
ments which are not obviously his. I begin by translating 
two closely connected chapters of the Ecclesiastical History 
(iii. 11, 12) : 3 

1 In his quotation from Clement of Alexandria, in H. E. v. 11, he, 
in like manner, omits a sentence. And it is at least possible that 
some of the passages which we have added to Hegesippus s account of 
St. James were omitted of set purpose. Cp. also H. E. i. 2. 3, 15 ; 
x.4.30, 32, 48, 49 ff., 71. 

2 See, for example, his quotation from Dionysius of Alexandria, 
H. E. iii. 28. 4 f., which can only be understood when read with its context 
in H. E. vii. 25. 1-5. 

8 For the Greek see Appendix Illg-j, IV a, 


(c. 11) A record preserves the following story (Aoyos 
ex After the witness (fjiapTvpiav) of James and the 
capture of Jerusalem which immediately followed it, such 
of the apostles and the disciples of the Lord as still 
remained alive came together from every direction to the 
same place, together with those who were of the same 
race, according to the flesh, as the Lord for many even 
of these were still living and all of them took counsel 
together whom they should adjudge worthy to succeed 
James. And then with one mind all of them approved 
of Symeon the son of Clopas, of whom the passage of the 
Gospel makes mention, as worthy of the seat of the com 
munity there, since he was, if report is to be believed (o>s- 
ye 0ao-i), a cousin of the Saviour. For, in fact, Clopas 
was brother to Joseph : so Hegesippus relates (Hyri<nTnros 
i<rTopei). (c. 12) And besides these things [the authority 
cited adds] (/cat e?n TOVTOLS) : Vespasian after the capture 
of Jerusalem commanded that all who were of the race of 
David should be sought out, to the end that there might 
not be left among the Jews any of those who belonged to 
the royal tribe ; and from this cause a very great perse 
cution was again stirred up against the Jews. 

Before entering upon a discussion of this important 
passage something must be said in justification of the 
translation which has been given of the introductory 
words, Aoyo? /care^e*. This phrase has been often as 
sumed to indicate no more than an oral tradition, and so 
in the latest, and I believe the best, English translation of 
the History l it is rendered it is said . But this is incor 
rect. As Lightfoot has observed, the expression Xoyoy 
Kare^L is not confined to oral tradition, but may include 
contemporary written authorities, and implies authentic 
and trustworthy information . 2 I have myself collected 
a number of instances of the use of this and similar phrases 
from the History, which completely corroborate this 

1 That of Mr. M c Giflert, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. i. 

2 Ignatius, vol. i, pp. 58, 238. Cp. Harnack, Chron. i. 128, n. 


remark. In the majority of cases where Eusebius intro 
duces a narrative with the words Aoyoy (Kar)eyti, the 
document on which he relies is either indicated in the 
immediate context, 1 or may be discovered by a search 
through the passages from previous writers scattered 
over his pages. 2 Only a few instances of the phrase 
remain, in which it does not seem possible to name the 
document referred to, 3 and in none of these is the use of 
documentary evidence excluded, or improbable. It may 
be regarded therefore as much more likely than not that 
in our passage the use of the phrase implies that Eusebius 

1 H. E. ii. 7 ; 17. 6, 19 ; 22. 2 (see 3-7) ; iii. 19 ; 32. 1 (see 2) ; 36. 3 
(see 7 : the passage cited does not, of course, prove that Ignatius was 
actually martyred, though, judging from H. E. iv. 16, it is not im 
possible that Eusebius thought otherwise) ; iv. 5. 1 (see 2 : the state 
ment that the bishops were short-lived may be an inference from the 
number of names in the written lists the diadoxai of v. 12; but see 
below, p. 92) ; iv. 28 (see 29. 3) ; v. 5. 1, 2 (see 3-7) ; vi. 28. 

2 H. E. iii. 37. 1 (see v. 17. 3) ; v. 10. 1 (see vi. 19. 13, where, how 
ever, it is not stated that Pantaenus was a Stoic. Observe that Xdyoy 
f\fi is here, as it seems, contrasted with (f>a<ri). In H. E. iii. 24. 5 we 
have the statement, depending on \6yos Kare ^ei, that Matthew and 
John wrote their Gospels of necessity 1 ((ndvayKfs). It is possible 
that Eusebius intended \6yos Kare ^a to cover only his assertion about 
St. Matthew. For when in 7 ff. he recounts a story of the origin of 
St. John s Gospel, for which no earlier authority is known, he refers, 
and apparently with some emphasis, to common report as the evidence 
for what he tells (cjbao-i, 7 bis, 11). His assertion about St. Matthew 
is scarcely more than a fair inference from extracts which he gives 
elsewhere from Papias (iii. 39. 16), Irenaeus (v. 8. 2), and Origen (vi. 
25. 4). That it was made by Papias in so many words, in the passage 
of which no more than the two concluding sentences are now pre 
served (iii. 39. 16), is far from incredible. 

3 H. E. i. 12. 3 ; ii. 17. 1 ; vi. 4. 3 (perhaps referring to a letter of 
Origen, as in the next sentence, <os TTOV <;o-ti> avros) ; vii. 12 ; 32. 6 ; viii. 
6. .6 (cp. below, p. 268) ; App. 1. In ii. 1. 13 reference is, no doubt, 
made to Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. iii. 12. 8, while for the statement in 
v. 19. 1 there can be no question that a written list of bishops of 
Antioch was the voucher. H. E. iii. 18. 1 ; 20. 9 will be discussed 


is not merely reporting a current tradition, but para 
phrasing a document. 

If this be granted, several arguments, which taken 
together amount to practical demonstration, may be urged 
in proof of the conclusion that the document which lay 
before Eusebius was in fact the Memoirs of Hegesippus. 1 

The first is based on the evidence supplied by the text 
of the passage itself. It consists of five distinct state 
ments, three in chapter 11 and two in chapter 12, in the 
oratio obliqua, the subject in each case being in the accusa 
tive and the verb in the infinitive, and each statement 
depending on Aoyoy Kare^t or ^Hyricmnros ia-ropeT. Con 
fining ourselves for the present to chapter 11, it is obvious 
that Aoyoy KOLT^L controls the first statement. But the 
first and second statements are so closely connected that 
it is impossible to suppose that they were derived from 
different sources. Hence the record must have con 
tained all that is told in chapter 11, with the possible ex 
ception of the last clause, which might also have been 
regarded as controlled by Aoyo? KaTt\ei if the words 
TTTTos lo-TopeT had not followed it. Now the word 
could scarcely be used of such a simple statement 
as that Clopas was Joseph s brother : it almost always 
implies a narrative, however brief. 2 Hence Hyrjo-nnros 
lo-Topei must include the second statement, and therefore 
also the first, as well as the third. The conclusion is plain 
that Aoyo? KOLT\I and Hyricmnros to-Topei are in the 
present instance equivalent statements. One of the two- 
is redundant, since Hegesippus was actually the author of 
the record . "We may suppose that by the time Euse 
bius reached the end of chapter 11 he had forgotten that 

1 Cp. Hort, Judaistic Christianity, p. 170. 

2 Many passages might be cited in support of this statement. 
But on the other hand see H. E. ii. 17. 2 ; iv. 22. 7. 


he had introduced his indirect quotation with the former 
phrase, and so came to repeat it in another form. An 
exact parallel for this grammatical confusion is not per 
haps to be found elsewhere in the History. But some 
thing like it occurs a little further on (iii. 19), 1 where to 
an indirect quotation from Hegesippus the words TraXaibs 
Kar\L Xoyo? are prefixed, after which a direct quotation 
immediately follows, prefaced with These things Hege 
sippus makes plain, speaking as follows . 2 

But again the note of time in the very first clause of 
chap. 11 is distinctly Hegesippean. The assembly of the 
apostles and disciples is said to have taken place after the 
martyrdom of James and the capture of Jerusalem which 
immediately followed it . Now Eusebius follows two main 
authorities for the martyrdom, Josephus and Hegesippus. 
The former dates it between the death of Festus and the 
arrival of his successor Albinus, 3 i. e. A.D. 61-2. This date 
Eusebius adopts in his Chronica, where he assigns the 
murder to An. Ab. 2077 = 7 Nero. 4 But Hegesippus puts 
it immediately before either the Jewish war or the siege 
of Jerusalem. 5 This is the date given in the passage 
before us. 

1 See Appendix IV c, f. 

8 Compare iii. 32. 1 f. TOV KaG* fjn&v /care^et \6yos 
dtayfjiov . . . KCU TOVTOV naprvs avrbs CKCIVOS . . . HyrjcriTTTros. 

3 H. E. ii. 23. 21 ff. = Joseph. Ant. xx. 9. 1. 

4 See also H. E. ii. 23. 2. See C. H. Turner in Journal of Theological 
Studies, i (1900), p. 533. 

5 Ap. H. E. ii. 23. 18. See Appendix III e. Zahn (p. 234) adduces 
strong reasons for the view that in the words KOI fv6i>s OveaTracriavbs 
TroXiop/cet avTovs Hegesippus is alluding to the war, not to the siege. In 
that case the date indicated by Hegesippus would be Passover 66, amonth 
before the uproar in Jerusalem mentioned by Josephus (B.J. ii. 15. 2), 
which took place in May and may be regarded as the beginning of the 
war. But Eusebius certainly understood the words to refer to the siege, 
which began shortly before Passover 70 ; for he immediately afterwards 


And lastly, when we place chapter 11 beside the passage 
translated above, 1 which is expressly stated to have been 
from the pen of Hegesippus, we discover that a great part 
of the first sentence of the latter appears in slightly altered 
form in the former. There are, it is true, three important 
additions in the passage now before us : the mention of 
the siege of Jerusalem, the account of the assembling of 
the apostles and relatives of the Lord, and the remark 
that Clopas was Joseph s brother. But the last two of 
these occur at the very places where we have already 
found reason to suspect omissions in the quotation first 
considered, one preceding and the other following the 
statement that Symeon was unanimously elected. And 
now that the substance of the omitted sentences is known 
to us we can easily understand why Eusebius passed them 
over in his transcript in H. E. iv. 22. 4. For his purpose 
there was to give an account of the introduction of here 
tical teaching into the Church ; and to that purpose the 
details of the election and the exact relationship of Symeon 
to the Lord were not pertinent. The remainder of the 
passage, however standing now as the first sentence of 
the direct quotation was necessary to fix the date, and 
to explain the allusion to the heresiarch Thebuthis which 
immediately follows. 2 For no doubt it was the intention 
of Eusebius to convey that Thebuthis was proposed as a 
rival candidate for the bishopric when Symeon was elected. 
Anyhow it is very probable that this actually took place. 
He was a convert from one of the Jewish sects, and the 
majority of such converts were won through the influence 
of James the Just. 3 He belonged, it would therefore 
seem, to a later and perhaps less conservative generation 

paraphrases them thus : TTJS Trapaxprj^a /xera TO fiaprvpiov avrov TroAiop/a as 

TT)S lpOV(TO.\T]fJL. l PagC 18. 

8 See Appendix III 1. 3 H. E. ii. 23. 9. See Appendix III e. 


of believers, It is quite likely that when the bishopric 
became vacant they would propose a candidate of their 
own in opposition to the candidate favoured by those who 
survived from the period which closed some forty years 
earlier. It appears certain therefore that H. E. iii. 11 is 
a paraphrase of the earlier part of the passage of the 
Memoirs from which we have in H. E. iv. 22. 4 a series of 

It is not unimportant to observe that on the hypothesis 
that Thebuthis was a rival of Symeon, the electors of the 
latter were not the general body of the faithful, as we 
might have expected, but the surviving apostles and 
disciples i. e. those who had believed on Christ before 
the Ascension and His relatives. Their unanimity was 
therefore not an indication of the unity of the Church of 
Jerusalem. It only showed that the followers of Thebu 
this, if he had any, were not included among the privileged 
persons who had the final voice in the election of the 
bishop. Thus Zahn s explanation of the puzzling words 
8ia TOVTO * can hardly be maintained. 

It has been debated whether the indirect quotation in 
chapter 12 depends on Aoyoy Karexei at the beginning, or 
on Hyrjo-iTTiros /oroperat the end of chapter II. 2 For us 
the question is purely syntactic, or even without meaning. 
If our reasoning has been correct it is certainly derived 
from Hegesippus. But it must be remarked that the 
opening phrase KOL km TOVTOLS seems to mark it as not 
continuous with the passage paraphrased in chapter II. 3 

1 See above, p. 19. 

2 The third alternative suggested by Zahn (p. 238), that the con* 
struction depends on t$s ye <JHHTI (which he regards as a resumption of 
Xoyos Kare ^ft), seems highly improbable. The meaning of &> $ ye fyacri 
will be discussed below. 

3 Cp. H. E. i. 8. 16 ; ii. 1. 14 ; 6. 7, 8 ; iii. 32. 7 ; vii. 25. 6, &c. But see 
also iv. 15. 15. Compare Heinichen ad loc. 


We may now attempt to fix the position in the Memoirs 
of the passage represented by H. E. iv. 22. 4 and iii. 11. It 
began, as we have seen, with some such words as And 
after James the Just had borne witness . . . and Jerusalem 
had immediately afterwards been captured . This seems 
to imply that a narrative of the martyrdom of James had 
preceded it ; and if so there can be little question that the 
narrative referred to was that which Eusebius has quoted 
from the Memoirs. 1 If the whole of that section is sum 
marized in the words c after James the Just had borne 
witness , its closing words, KOL vOi>$ Ovea-Traaiavos TTO\L- 
opKti avrovs, are recalled by the succeeding allusion to the 
sack of Jerusalem. But while it seems plain that the 
passage now under consideration followed the account of 
the martyrdom of St. James, it is less easy to decide 
whether it followed it immediately or was separated from 
it by another passage. On the one hand, the abrupt close 
of the story of the martyrdom with the sentence just 
quoted certainly suggests that some account of the Jewish 
war followed. 2 And the inference is supported by the 
first sentence of our passage. Would Hegesippus have 
resumed his narrative in so elaborate a fashion if nothing 
had intervened between the close of the section about St. 
James and the beginning of that about Symeon ? But on 
the other hand it is difficult to believe that if Hegesippus 
had enlarged on this subject Eusebius would have failed 
to quote him. For the war the historian depends wholly 
on Josephus, though when he comes to the murder of St. 
James he places his account side by side with that of the 
Christian writer. Had Hegesippus dealt with the subject 
of the war at any length he would certainly have told 
much that would have been of interest to Eusebius, and 

1 U. E. ii. 23. 4-18. See Appendix III c-e. 

2 Compare Zahn, p. 236. 


of no little importance in regard to the history of the 
Church in Palestine. 1 On the whole it seems most pro 
bable that our passage was introduced by a short section 
concerning the war, which however did not tell its story 
in such detail as to call for comparison with the fuller 
narrative of Josephus. 

Now Zahn 2 holds the opinion that Hegesippus included 
in his Memoirs a notice of the flight of the Christians of 
Jerusalem to Pella, immediately before the siege. The 
arguments by which this hypothesis is supported may be 
stated as follows. Epiphanius has three short narratives 
of the flight. The first two occur in successive chapters 
of the Panarion, in the first of which he treats of the 
origin of the Nazoraeans, and in the second, in similar 
fashion, of that of the Ebionites (Haer. 29. 7 ; 30. 2) ; the 
third is found in his treatise De Mensuris et Ponderibus 
(c. 15). 3 And the three accounts are characterized by 
remarkable similarities of phraseology. Thus in Haer. 

29 the flight is 77 airo ra>v t Iepo<roAi>/ia>i> /zeracrraorfS , and in 
De Metis. 15 we are told that the Christians were enjoined 
fjLeTao-TfjvaL OLTTO rfjs TroAecoy. In Haer. 30 they are described 
as fj,Tava(TTd^T(oVj and in De Mens. 15 as yuera^acrrai ye/6- 
fjLtvoi. The fugitives are all the apostles 4 in Haer. 29, 
* all the disciples in De Mens. 15, and in Haer. 30 all 

1 It may be added that if Hegesippus intended to date the martyr 
dom of James immediately before the outbreak of the war (i.e. April 
66) Eusebius could not have misunderstood him and dated it imme 
diately before the siege (i.e. Spring 70) if Hegesippus had given an 
account of the military operations between the former and the latter 
date. See above, p. 24. 

2 Op. cit., p. 269 f. 

8 These passages are printed in Appendix III f. 

4 So Dindorf with the Venetian MS. But the reading is rendered 
suspicious by Eusebius s implication (see below, p. 33 f.) that the 
apostles did not go to Pella. The older editors read /Midgrat, which 
would make the agreement between Haer. 29 and De Mens. 15 yet closer. 


who believed in Christ . In Haer. 29 we have the phrase 
kv lleXXrj ajKrjKOTtov, and in De Mens. 15 &KV)arav kv IleXXr). 
In Haer. 29 we find the words -rr^v Tltpaiav oiKrj(ravT$ 
, which are matched by TT\V Iltpatav . . . 
Kat Kicr SiaTpipovrwv in Haer. 30. In 
Haer. 29 it is said that Jerusalem rjfjieXXe iravy^iv TroXiop- 
Kiav; Haer. 30 does not mention the impending siege, 
but in De Mens. 15 it is alluded to in the expression e^eXXe 
aXL(TKcrOai KTX .and jaeXXou(n)s ap8r]v aTroXXva-Qai. The word 
aXcDo-is for the capture of the city in Haer. 30 is balanced 
by the use of the cognate verb aXio-Keo-Qai with the same 
reference in De Mens. 15. And finally Pella is said both 
in Haer. 30 and De Mens. 15 to have been a city of the 
Decapolis, 1 a coincidence all the more remarkable because 
the name Decapolis was obsolete in Epiphanius s day. 
This fact he plainly intimates, in one case by observing 
that the Decapolis is mentioned in the Gospel, and in the 
other by his disclaimer of first-hand knowledge the 
city is said to belong to the Decapolis. 

The greater number of these words and phrases may be 
supposed to have come from the source from which Epi- 
phanius derived his knowledge of the flight, especially 
since it is known that the composition of the treatise 
about weights and measures was separated from that of 
the Panarion by an interval of fifteen years or more. 
Can we discover what that source was ? We turn natu 
rally to the only extant account of the flight of earlier date 
than Epiphanius, that which is given by Eusebius. 2 It is 
evident, however, that Epiphanius did not depend on it, 
for he states definitely that the Christians left Jerusalem 

1 So also in Haer. 29. 7, in the sentence immediately preceding the 
passage given in Appendix III f., the Nazoraeans are said to have dwelt 
cv rfj AfKOTroXft jrepl TCI Trjs IlfXXrjs fj.epr] and elsewhere. 

2 H. E. iii. 5. 2 f. See Appendix III f. 


in obedience to a command of Christ (Haer. 29) which was 
conveyed by an angel (DeMens. 15), while Eusebius merely 
says that they had some sort of (riva) divine intimation 
(Xprjo-fj-ov) granted by revelation . And several of the 
phrases quoted above do not occur in Eusebius. Never 
theless between Eusebius and Epiphanius there is no 
contradiction, and there are many points of contact. If 
according to Eusebius the Christians received a xp 7707*09, 
in De Mens. 15 it is said Trpotxp 1 ! P-^TLCT Oijcrav. We have 
in Eusebius the phrase -^TavacrrflvaL rfjs TroXeo)? corre 
sponding to /jieTao-TfjisaL dno rfjs TroAeo)? in De Mens. 15, 
and reminding us of airo T&V Itpoa-oXvpcov nerda-Tao-is in 
Haer. 29, fjLtTavaa-rdvTts in Haer. 30, and ^Tavda-rai in De 
Mens. 15. Jerusalem is 77 rroXis in Eusebius and De Mens. 
15, and Pella is ri? yroXi? in Eusebius and Haer. 30. The 
verb oiKfTv is used in relation to Pella in Eusebius exactly 
as in the three passages of Epiphanius, oi e/y XpLvrov irtTn- 
crTevKOTts as in Haer. 30, apSyv of the destruction of 
Jerusalem as in De Mens. 15, Xpta-Tov (frrjo-ai Tos as in 
Haer. 29, though in a different connexion. We may also 
note that iroXiv . . . IltXXav avTr\v ovond^ovviv in Eusebius 
and IleXXrj . . . troXei KaXovfjiivr) in Haer. 30 read very like 
different paraphrases of the same words. 

All these facts lead to the conclusion that Eusebius and 
Epiphanius relied on a common document for the flight 
to Pella. What was it ? In the earlier part of the long 
sentence in which Eusebius mentions the flight an indirect 
reference is made to Hegesippus, when the death of James 
the Just is said to have been already recounted ; and 
Epiphanius, in that part of the Panarion in which occur 
his first two accounts of the same incident, is probably 
depending on the Memoirs for some of his statements 
about other things. 1 It is not rash to infer that both 
1 See above, p. 10. 


writers learned also what they knew of the flight to Pella 
from that work. 

This reasoning, no doubt, does not compel assent. But 
it is materially strengthened when we take account of 
another consideration. If Hegesippus alluded at all to 
the flight, it is obvious that in his work the narrative of 
it would most naturally follow that of the martyrdom 
of James, and thus, if we have argued correctly, precede 
the story of the election of Symeon. Let us then try 
the experiment of putting the story which lies behind 
the four passages of Eusebius and Epiphanius into that 
place, and see whether it fits comfortably into the niche 
which has been provided for it. We shall find, if I am 
not mistaken, that it harmonizes admirably with its 

In the first place, it satisfies the expectation raised by 
the closing sentence of the narrative of the martyrdom of 
St. James, that Hegesippus had something to say about 
the Jewish war, and said it in a passage immediately 
following, which Eusebius has not quoted. The Pella 
narrative, moreover, can have been of no great length. 
A sentence suffices for a summary of it in three of our 
passages, and little more than a sentence in the fourth. 
This also is in accordance with our anticipation. We 
can understand too why Eusebius does not compare it 
with the history of the war which he extracts from 
Josephus ; for the only incident with which it is concerned 
is not recorded by Josephus at all. And it is quite in 
keeping with what we know of the design of the Memoirs 
that Hegesippus should restrict his notice of the war to 
this one event. For he was not at all concerned with the 
misfortunes of the Jewish people as such, or with the 
sack of the city for its own sake, but only with these 
things in their relation to the Church of Jerusalem. The 


war, in fact, caused a lacuna in the history of the Church 
of that place. Hegesippus had only to explain how 
this happened, and how the total destruction of the Church 
was avoided ; and that is fully done in the Pella story. 

Then again, we have already observed that Eusebius 
introduces his account of the flight with a reference to 
the Memoirs. It is not without significance that the 
passage to which he alludes is that which, on our 
hypothesis, immediately preceded the Pella story as 
told by Hegesippus. Again, Hegesippus closes his account 
of St. James with the words KOU tvOvs OvecrTrao-iavbs iroXi- 
op/ce? avrovs : l we are reminded of it by the remark in 
Haer. 29 that Jerusalem rj/jieXXe iravy^iv TroXtopKiav. 
Again in Haer. 30 we meet with the phrase, //era rr^v T$>V 
lepoa-oXvfjLcoi^ a\G*(Tiv : it occurs again with trifling varia 
tions in Eusebius s paraphrase of the first sentence of 
the section of the Memoirs about Symeon, //era . . . rrjv 
avTiKa ytvoiJLtvr]v dXaxrij/ rrj? JepOLxraA^//. 2 

But further, a close examination of the account of 
S3^meon s election seems to reveal the fact that it was 
introduced by a notice of the departure of the Christians 
from Jerusalem. We have seen that the portion of this 
passage which followed the introductory clauses is 
represented in the direct quotation by the single word 
TTOL\IV ; and we have learned from the paraphrase that its 

1 It is not altogether impossible that these words may really belong 
to the Pella story. We have seen that Eusebius is quite capable of 
tacitly omitting part of a passage in quotation ; and there is force 
in Schwartz s remark, though perhaps he expresses himself rather too 
dogmatically, that this and the preceding sentences are alternative 
endings to the narrative, both of which cannot have stood in the 
original text. However, it must be remembered that wherever the 
words were in Eusebius s copy of the Memoirs they must have been in 
sufficiently close connexion with the martyrdom to convince him that 
the latter took place immediately before the siege. 

2 H. E. iii. 11. See Appendix Illg. 


substance was that as many of the apostles, disciples, and 
relatives of the Lord as survived assembled from all 
quarters to elect a bishop to succeed James the Just. 
Eusebius also informs us that Symeon was elected bishop 
of the Church in Jerusalem* a statement which he 
probably derived from the portion of Hegesippus s 
Memoirs now under consideration. It seems to imply 
that the Christians had returned thither on the con 
clusion of the siege. These facts determine with high 
probability the verb with which TTOL\IV was connected in 
the text of Hegesippus. We can scarcely doubt that it 
w&so-vvepxovTai, or an equivalent, represented by 
in the paraphrase. But the phrase trakiv 
they assemble once more involves a scattering 
recounted in the preceding context. Thus our hypothesis 
that the flight to Pella was recorded before the election of 
Symeon is confirmed. 

It does not follow of course that this was the record of 
which Eusebius and Epiphanius made use. But now we 
must notice another fact. Hegesippus stated, if we are 
to believe Eusebius, that those who elected Symeon 
came together from all directions (iravTa\6Qev). We 
might have expected him to say * from Pella , or at any 
rate from Peraea . Again, the electors are divided into 
three classes apostles, disciples who had heard the teach 
ing of the Lord, the kindred of Christ. But the first class 
is evidently comprehended in the second. Why then 
are they treated as distinct ? Various reasons might be 
suggested ; but let us turn to Eusebius s account of the 
flight. There too there is the same sharp distinction 
between apostles and disciples. Both left Jerusalem, 
and both, as we see when we read Eusebius and Epi 
phanius together, in obedience to a command of Christ. 
1 H. E. iii. 32. 1. 


But the former obeyed the command of St. Matthew xxviii. 
19; they went to preach the Gospel to all the nations : 
the latter obeyed a command given at the time ; they 
sought safety by going to Pella and the neighbouring 
district. And so after the siege the former came to 
Jerusalem from all directions, only the latter from Peraea. 
And further it would seem that in the original narrative 
the second of the three classes of electors was dis 
tinguished from the general body of the faithful, though 
neither Eusebius nor Epiphanius has caught the point. 
The whole body might very well be represented by the 
word fj.aOr]Tai, used in Haer. 29 (P) 1 and De Mens. 15 ; but 
oi th XpLcrTov TreTnoTef/core?, the phrase which takes its 
place in Eusebius and Haer. 30, may have indicated the 
smaller company who had followed the Lord during His 
public ministry. Thus we find not a few indications that 
the passage about Symeon and the narrative of the flight 
from Jerusalem which Eusebius and Epiphanius consulted 
are of a piece. And on the whole I see no reason to doubt 
that it was taken from the Memoirs, and in them imme 
diately followed the story of the martyrdom of James. 

This long discussion of the story of the migration to 
Pella, though it has in some directions illustrated the 
narrative of the election of Symeon, has nevertheless 
withdrawn our attention from it. To it we must now 
return. It appears from Eusebius s paraphrase that 
Hegesippus not only stated that Symeon was chosen as 
bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord, but also added 
the explanation, which is omitted in the direct quotation, 
that Symeon s father Clopas was Joseph s brother. Of 
the contents of the passage of Hegesippus thus summarized 
we gain fuller knowledge from another source. 

It will be remembered that we have already shown 
1 See above, p. 28, note. 


that a description of James the Just given by Epiphanius, 
Haer. 78. 7, is founded on a passage of Hegesippus of 
which his knowledge, if not direct, was at least inde 
pendent of Eusebius. 1 In the earlier part of the same 
paragraph he maintains the opinion that Mary was only 
the nominal wife of Joseph. He professes to base his 
argument on the tradition of the Jews (Kara -rr\v aKoXov- 
Oiav e/c TTJS T&V lovSaicw TrapaSocrecos), and then proceeds to 
make some statements which could not have been derived 
from such a source, and are, in fact, in the main based on 
the Protevangelium of James. But he immediately adds 
that Joseph was the brother of Clopas, both being sons of 
one James, surnamed Panther. Afterwards he gives the 
names of Joseph s children, and speaks more at length 
about the eldest of them, James the Just, in the passage 
just referred to. It would seem to have been these latter 
particulars, or some of them, and especially the assertion 
that Joseph and Clopas were sons of James Panther, that 
Epiphanius or his authority connected with Jewish tra 
dition. Now it is quite impossible that Epiphanius 
could have gathered his material from Jewish tradition ; 
but, on the other hand, it is certain that Hegesippus, 
whom he follows closely in certain parts of this very 
passage, did make use of it. This is the direct statement 
of Eusebius. 2 The inference at once becomes highly pro 
bable that Epiphanius is here reproducing the earlier 
Christian writing. Its probability is enhanced when we 
observe the striking similarity between the words of 
Epiphanius, oiroy //ei> yap 6 laxrrjty a^eA^oy yiverai rov 
, and Eusebius s paraphrase of Hegesippus, KXtondv 

TOV IctxTrjcj). 3 
But there is more to be said. Epiphanius implies that 

1 See above, pp. 5 ff . 2 H. E. iv. 22. 8. 

3 In this paragraph I have closely followed Zahn, pp. 265 ff. 
D 2 


the writer of whom he made use professed to have drawn 
his information about the relationship between Joseph 
and Clopas from Jewish tradition, and Eusebius makes 
Hegesippus say the same thing ave^Lov, <3s Y 6 fa, 
yeyovora TOV <rcoTf}po$. The words co? ye (/HUTI are not to 
be understood as an addition by Eusebius. Still less are 
they a mere variation of Aoyoy /carpet. 1 They represent 
something that stood in the text of the Memoirs. And 
they may very well be a paraphrase of a clause nearly 
identical with the Kara rr\v aKoXovQtav e/c rfjs T>V lov- 
ai<>v TrapaSoa-eo)? of Epiphanius, since </>a(ri is a favourite 
word of Eusebius for unwritten report. 2 

Thus there is little reason to doubt that Eusebius and 
Epiphanius had the same passage of the Memoirs before 
them, and that it contained the statement, which Eusebius 
passes over, that James, surnamed Panther, was the father 
of Joseph and Clopas. 

Two further remarks may be made. If I am right, 
Eusebius has deliberately omitted the name of the father 
of these two men. This is not to be wondered at ; we 
shall presently come across another passage in which he 

1 As Zahn holds, p. 238. 

2 I have noticed only one passage in which Eusebius uses the word 
(fravi as equivalent to \oyos uare^fi, H. E. vii. 12. He sometimes 
indicates by it information derived from written records, e.g. H. E i. 
12. 1, 3 (cf. 13. 10) ; ii. 2. 2. On the other hand it appears to be con 
trasted with Xo yos- Karexfi (implying documentary evidence) in H. E. 
ii. 16. 1; 17.1; iii. 24.5,7,11. Eusebius tells us that he gathered material 
for his account of Origen partly from Origen s own epistles and 
partly from the oral testimony of elders who had known him (H. E. 
vi. 2. 1 ; 33. 4). Facts related on the evidence of the latter are sparingly 
given, and are introduced by </>a<rf in H. E. vi. 2. 11 ; 3. 7 ; 5. 2 ; 36. 1. 
The word is not apparently used of information derived from the 
epistles. For other instances of the application of $aoi to oral 
tradition see H. E. ii. 15. 2; iv. 29. 6; 30. 2 ; v. 10.2; vii. 17 (a 
narrative of the surviving friends of Astyrius) ; 32. 6, 8 ; and perhaps 
vi. 29. 2. 


omits names that were before him in the Memoirs. 1 But 
it is to be observed that in the present case he had a 
special motive for the omission on account of the hideous 
fables that the Jews had made to centre round the name 
of Panther. 

And again, if coy ye <f>acri and Kara aKoXovQiav /c 7779 TCO> 
lovSaiav 7rapa86o-&)$ are independent paraphrases of 
words used by Hegesippus, it is worthy of note that the 
former in Eusebius does not appear in immediate con 
nexion with the assertion that Joseph and Clopas were 
brothers. It is in the previous clause, in which Symeon 
is said to have been a cousin of the Lord. Thus these two 
clauses are bound together and must have been originally 
parts of the same context. It is most unlikely that the latter 
of the two was taken from another part of the Memoirs, 
as might perhaps have been thought probable if Eusebius s 
History had been our only source of information. 

Now this conclusion is very much to our purpose. For 
it goes to show that in the direct quotation there is 
a lacuna, as we have already had reason to suspect, before 
the words on this account they called the Church 
a virgin . But the omitted portion must have included 
more than the clause concerning Clopas ; for the words 
on this account still remain without justification. In 
other words, we have not yet found the concluding 
portion of the omitted passage. But if the omission is 
once granted it is not far to seek. Eusebius tells that 
Hegesippus, when narrating the events of the times of 
Trajan and his predecessors, 2 relates that until the times 
then present the Church remained a virgin pure and un- 
corrupt,since those, if there were any in. exist ence ; who were 

1 See below, p. 78, and Appendix IV g. 

2 Ta Kara rois 8r]\ovfjLevovs. Trajan has just been mentioned ; Nero 
and Domitian are spoken of in an earlier part of the chapter. 


seeking to corrupt the sound rule of the saving doctrine 
were still at that time in obscure darkness somewhere, as 
it were hiding . 

But , he proceeds, when the sacred company of the 
apostles attained, each in his own way, the end of life, and 
that generation of those who had been counted worthy to 
hear with their own ears the divine (evOtov) wisdom had 
passed away, then the conspiracy of atheistic (dOeov) 
error took its origin through the deceitfulness of the 
teachers of strange doctrines, who also, now that none 
of the apostles any longer remained, henceforth with 
naked head were attempting to proclaim the knowledge 
falsely so called in opposition to the proclamation of the 
truth. 1 

A hasty reader might assume that all this was a para 
phrase of Hegesippus. But Zahn 2 points out that the 
oratio obliqua is confined to the first sentence: and it 
must be added that the second sentence reminds one 
rather of the ornate periods of Eusebius than of the very 
simple style of the earlier writer. If it is ultimately 
based on Hegesippus it must have been entirely recast 
by Eusebius. But this is unlikely. The Church which 
according to Hegesippus was styled a virgin was the 
Church of Jerusalem, 3 while the Church referred to in the 
second sentence is clearly the Universal Church. What 
would give increased courage to the heretics at Jerusalem 
would not be the death of the last of the apostles at 
Ephesus, but the withdrawal from their neighbourhood 
of those who had elected Symeon. On the whole, there 
fore, it seems that while the first sentence is an indirect 
quotation from Hegesippus, the second is Eusebius s 
commentary. And the commentary appears to be based 

1 H. E. iii. 32. 7 f. For the Greek of the first sentence see 
Appendix Illk. 2 p. 241. 

3 See Heg. ap. H. E. iv. 22. 5 f. (Appendix III 1.) That Eusebius 
understood the passage to refer to the Church universal is clear from 
the preceding context, 1-4. 


on a misunderstanding. Eusebius supposed that Hegesip- 
pus was speaking of the origin of heresy in the Church as 
a whole, and he probably interpreted a reference to the 
departure of the apostles from Jerusalem as indicating 
their death. 1 

Now the first sentence of the quotation, which is cer 
tainly from Hegesippus, may with some confidence be 
regarded as the passage of which we are in search. It 
would be a very suitable introduction to the following : 

On this account they called the Church a virgin ; for 
it was not yet corrupted by vain teachings. But Thebuthis. 
because he was not himself made bishop, begins to corrupt 
it from the seven heresies among the people to which 
he himself belonged . . . Each [of the heretical teachers] 
severally and in different ways introduced their several 
opinions. From these came false Christs, false prophets, 
false apostles, men who divided the unity of the Church 
with corrupt words against God and against His Christ. 2 

In other words, the first sentence of the quotation is 
the close of the portion omitted by Eusebius in his tran 
script of the passage of Hegesippus which leads up to that 
which is here translated. "Whether it immediately 
followed the statement that Clopas was Joseph s brother 
is not capable of confident determination. Some sentences 
may perhaps have intervened ; but it must be added that 
there is no obvious reason for thinking so. 

But however that may be, it is easy to fix upon the passage 
which followed that which has just been quoted, since 
Eusebius himself helps us to find it. Hegesippus , he 

1 Valois seems to regard the whole passage as a paraphrase of that 
which is quoted next. But this cannot be. On the other hand, Zahn s 
view (p. 241), that at least the first sentence is based on a passage in 
which the substance of the latter was repeated in a different connexion, 
seems to me unsupported by evidence, and a priori not very probable. 

2 H. E. iv. 22. 4 if. See Appendix III 1. 


says, 1 in his narrative about certain heretics goes on to 
state that by these at that time the above-mentioned 
person [Symeon] was subjected to accusation, and after 
being tortured for many days in various manners as being 
a Christian, and very greatly astonishing the judge and 
his attendants, won as his reward a death which resembled 
the passion of the Lord. The first words of this sentence 
plainly allude to the passage quoted above. The allusion 
would have been more obvious if the list of heresies and 
false teachers which it contains had not been omitted in 
our translation. The succeeding clause will be at once 
recognized as a condensed paraphrase of the following : 

Certain of these (namely the heretics) accuse Simon 
the son of Clopas as being a descendant of David and a 
Christian. And so he bears witness at the age of 120 
years under Trajan Caesar and the proconsul Atticus. 2 

The parenthesis namely the heretics is clearly an 
addition of Eusebius. It is necessary when the sentence 
is quoted, as it is by him, apart from its context, but need 
less when it is led up to by the section dealing with the 
heretics . It will be found hereafter that the remainder 
of the sentence, about the sufferings of Symeon, corre 
sponds to another extract from Hegesippus preserved by 
the historian. 


"We have now placed a considerable number of passages 
from the Memoirs in their proper sequence. We have in 
fact before us, either in the ipsissima verba of Hegesippus 
or in the paraphrase of Eusebius, the whole of a section of 
his work which dealt with the history of the Church of 
Jerusalem during the later years of the episcopate of 

1 H. E. iii. 32. 2. See Appendix III 1, m ; IV 1. 

2 H. E. iii. 32. 3. See Appendix III m. 


James the Just, and that of his successor Symeon, with 
the possible exception of some sentences here and there 
.not quoted by Eusebius. Our main difficulty in regard to 
this group of extracts has been the discovery of the order 
in which they stood in the Memoirs. In the case of the 
series next to be considered the arrangement of the frag 
ments will give us less trouble, and with three exceptions 
the determination of the passages which belong to it is 
easy, since they are expressly stated by Eusebius to have 
come from the pen of Hegesippus. 

To the task of setting forth the evidence for the 
Hegesippean authorship of the three anonymous fragments 
referred to we must now address ourselves. 

By way of preliminary two passages must be exhibited 
side by side. The first is reproduced, with some omissions, 
from Eusebius s Ecclesiastical History, Book III, chapters 
xvii-xx. 5. This I designate by the letter E. The 
second has been edited from the Paris MS. 1555 A by 
J. A. Cramer in his Anecdota Graeca e codd. manuscriptis 
Bibliothecae Regiae Parisiensis, Oxford, 1839, ii. 88, and 
from the Bodleian MS. Barocc. 142 by C. de Boor in 
Texte und Untersuchungen, v. 2. 169. I call it (7, and 
indicate the four sentences of which it consists by nu 
merals. Words which are common to the two are under 

E C 

xvii IIoAAryi/ ye JJLJJV eis TroAAovs 1 Aoyaeriavos vios Ov<nra<Ti- 

e7n.Seta/zei/os 6 Ao/xeriavos a>/xo- avoO TroAAA KaKa eis rot ? eV TeA.ei 
OVK oXiyov re rtov eVt, Pto/x^s Pw/mious eVSei 

7r\f)@o<s ov /xer euA.oyov 
KTetVas, [Jivptovs re aAA.ou s l-m^a- 
veis avSpas rats vTre/3 rrjv evopiav 
^t]fjiLwcra<s ^>fyats Kat rats r&v 
ovcrtwv aTroySoAais ai/atTicos, 


E C 

TO>V r>?5 Neptoi/os Oeoe^Opfa^ re Kat TT/V Ne ptoi/os vtK^cras tt /xo? 

cmjcraTO. Aeirrepos S^ra roi/ Ka$ Se^repo? Kara Xpicrriavoij/ 
Ty/AtDV dveKtVet Siwy/xov, KatVep 

^ \ 3 ^T 

TOV Trarpos avra> 

xviii. 1 Ev rorrrw /care^et Xdyo? 
TOV a.7roo"roXov a^ta 


Tt TO) /^to) v6iarpt- 

jJMprvpias IlaT/xoj/ OL 

xix . . . TatTa Se 8?/Xot Kara 
Ae^iy wSe TTCOS Xeywv 6 Hy^o-iTTTros. 

XX. 1 v Ert Se Trcpifjcrav ol OLTTO 
yevovg TOT) Kvptov vtaji/ot. Ioi;8a, 
rou Kara crapKa Aeyo/xeVou avrou 

CK yei^ov? OVTO.S Aavt 8 . . 

5 < 015 yar^Sev avroiv Kareyvto- 
Kora roi Ao/xeriavov, dXXa /cat <Ls 

oi/ /cat TOI/ aTroa-roXov 



lovSa roi) d8eX^>oi; roi) Kuptoi;, 

Kat yvovs T^V dperr/v raiv d 

xev avrovs dveti/at, Kara- 
Travcrat Se 8ta Trpoorrdy/xaros ror TC 
Kara TT}? eKKX^crtas Stooy/xov . . . 
7 Tavra /xev 6 HyryortTTTros. 

4 Ava<^epet 8c 6 
Kat TOL ovo/xara avroiv, Kt (^>^<TIV 
on 6 /xcv cKaAetro ZWKT^P, 6 8e 
IaK(o^So5. [ Icrropet 8c Kat aXXa 

A comparison of these two passages clearly proves that 
there is a literary connexion between them. But it is 
manifestly impossible that E is a mere expansion of C. 
May we then suppose that C was derived from E by way 
of abridgement ? This is certainly a possible hypothesis. 


But it appears to me to be improbable for several reasons. 
In the first place we are informed in C 4 that the names 
of the sons, or as E calls them grandsons, of Jude were 
Zocer and James. This fact the writer cannot have learnt 
from E ; for it is not recorded there. And he expressly tells 
us that he bases his statement on the authority of Hege- 
sippus. Now it is a priori probable that C 1-3 is imme 
diately derived from the same source as C 4. And, indeed, 
this seems to be indicated by the very phrase of the 
epitomizer : Avafytpei <Se 6 Hyrj&iTnros KU! ra 6^6fj.ara 
avT&v. C, then, may fairly be assumed to be founded not 
on E, but on the Memoirs of Hegesippus. And this is the 
work from which, as Eusebius himself says, E xx. 1-6 is a 
quotation. Thus we are led to the conclusion that from 
the Memoirs E and C are alike derived as their common 

And this conclusion is confirmed by other considerations. 
There is nothing in C to correspond to ^xviii. 2-4. Now 
on the supposition that C is an epitome of E this omission 
is not easy to explain. For the latter part of Exviii gives 
information which is both important and interesting. 
In 2, 3 evidence is given as to the date of the Apoca 
lypse ; 4 records the banishment of Flavia Domitilla. 
Why should such things have been passed over by one 
who undertook to give a summary, however brief, of E? 
On the other hand, on the theory which is here advocated, 
their absence from C is accounted for without difficulty. 
For 2, 3 are a quotation from Irenaeus ; and 4 is based, 
as we are told, on roi)? airoQtv TOV KaQ* rjfjids \6yov crvy- 
ypafats. Whatever the latter phrase may mean, it is at 
least certain that Hegesippus cannot be among the writers 
whom it includes ; and it is abundantly evident from the 
parallel passage in the Chronicle T that Bruttius, or Bret- 
1 Ed. Schoene, ii. 160, 163. Cp. Lightfoot, Clement of Rome, i. 46 ff. 


tins, was the principal, if not the only, authority on 
whom Eusebius relied for his account of Flavia Domitilla. 
Thus on the supposition that the writer of C had before 
him not E, but the Memoirs of Hegesippus, it was im 
possible for him to include in his summary the facts 
recorded in E xviii. 2-4. 

But again, according to the narrative of E, quoted 
verbatim from Hegesippus, the persons who were brought 
before Domitian were the grandsons (vlcovoi) of Jude. And 
that this is the true reading of Eusebius s text is manifest, 
for he himself paraphrases it by the word arroyovoi. 1 
But according to both the manuscripts of C they were the 
sons (vloi) of Jude. This might be set down to mere 
clerical error. But that would be a too hasty conclusion. 
Two other authorities have been found for the names 
James and Zocer, 2 and both call them sons of Jude. 3 

1 H. E. iii. 19. See Appendix IV f. 

2 A Menology quoted by C. F. Matthaei, Evangelium sec. Matthaeum, 
Kigae, 1778, p. 138, and the monk Epiphanius, Life of Mary, 14. I owe 
the references to Zahn, p. 240. 

3 Matthaei s Menology has the following at 26 May: C O aytos 
dnoo~TO\os louSay, 6 Kai AX^atoy, tis TWV ijB aTrooroXtov TWV p.eyd\a>v. 
OVTOS vlos r/v l(i)o~r)<p TOV fjLVTjVTrjpos, u>s eivat KOI UVTOV d8e\(pbv TOV Kvpiov. 
OVTOS crx 8vo vlovs, IaKco/3ov TOV dnoa-ToXov, oWa els rovs i/3, os Xe ycrni 

A\<paiov, 6ia TOV narepa AX^atoy. 6 8 TOVTOV dScX^os TJKOVC (sic) 
yeyove de Tp iTOS enifrKorros lepotroXy/KUj/. 7TpS>TO$ yap cVi 

fjv 6 TOVTOV ddeXf^os laKto/Sas 1 , 6 d8f\<p6do$ } devrfpos 
o vlos KXcoTra, TpLTos 5e lot>Saf err) ^. And again at 23 October : e O dyios 
aTrooToXoy laKw/Sof 6 do fXfpodeos. OVTOS 6 dyios aTrdcrroXoy ifpop.dpTVS 
la,Ka>|3os, 6 dSeXc^os TOV Kvpiov, 3\v vlos Ici>o-T|(j) d8eX<|>6s 8< TOV Kvpiov 810. 
TT|V TOV Io)o-r)<j> irpos Tt\v ayiav 0OT6Kov fAvrjo-Tctav. Ka\tT 
6|3Xias, o lpjjiif]VVTai irepioxTJ iraOwv. *Ia/o/3o$ 8e 7TTfpvio~Tr]S. 

VTTO TOV KVplOV (iriO-KOirOS C l6pOO"oXvjJlCiJV, (XT|T6 OIVOV p.T|T6 CTLKepa 1T6ir(i)K(OS, 

\t--r\TC p,v|/vxov TI 4>aY"v, jiTjTe cXaicp JIT|T jSaXavftco diroXova-as TO crw^a. 


tcpov u)O"avTS KaTto Kal |vXa> Kva4>cia> Kara TTJS K<|>aXT]S ira,TaavTS 
TXos aviTw eirtOirjKav. And again : lo^Xias \tyfrai 6<}>9aXp,6s Xcta pXtirwv. 
In Epiphanius Monachus, De vita B. Virg. 14 (P. G. cxx. 204), we read : 


Moreover, they exhibit, in addition to the names, traces 
of the influence of Hegesippus which are obviously inde 
pendent of Eusebius. There seems to be no escape from 
the inference that vioi was a variant foru/ooroi m some manu 
scripts of the Memoirs, and that C follows a text different 
from that used by Eusebius. It might even be contended 
that VIOL is the correct reading, forthe sonsof Jude are more 
likely than his grandsons to have been contemporary with 
his cousin Symeon and the Apostle John. But, however 
that may be, if C is based on a different text of Hegesippus 
from that used in E it cannot be a mere epitome of E. 

Assuming then the correctness of our hypothesis as to 
the relation between C and E, we can now form a pretty 
accurate conception of the method of work of the compiler 
to whom we are indebted for C. For E xx. 1-6 is a quo 
tation, in part direct, in part indirect, from Hegesippus. 
We have in it, in great measure, the very words of the 
passage of which C 3 is a summary. Comparing the two 

Kat eXajBev rfjv dvyarepa M.apiav 6 dScX(j>os aurwv (sc. TOV laj(r)70 Kai rfjs 
BforoKov) KXaj-rrds yvmiKa f avra)* KXeoTra? 8e 6 aeX(6s avrov la/ca>/3 
(1. laxrj^) 6p.oTrdrpios ex. TOV laira>/3, Kai eyiwr\<rfv auTT,s TOV 
OVTOS 8 6 2vp.wv p.Ta IaKa|3ov TOV aSe\4>ov rov Kvpiov 
yc-yovev ls lepooroXvp-a Kai irl Acp.f-ria.voi) |3acriXfcos 
iroXXds Pao-dvovs ti<rTpov ecrravptoOT], wv TWV px . Jax^os 8c 6 vlos 
la)(TJ5<^>, <cs (fraaiv Tivts, f(T\ev aiT<B yvvaiKa eVt CTTJ dvo /ecu TfXevrrja do rjs 
avTTJs CTfpav OVK ecr^ei . lovSas fif 6 d8eh(pos avrov tiroujarev 8vo vlovs, 
Za)KT|p Kai IaKo>|3ov, OTJTCO irpoo a yopevop.cvovs. OVTOI irapacrravTes Aop.e 
navw paoriXct Pw|n]S Bid TT|V dpTT\v atiTwv Kai <ro<)>tav TT|V Kara TWV 
Xpi<TTiavwv irat<ravTO 8icoyp.6v. 

It will be observed that in the Menology two interpretations of 
o>/3Xi ar are given Trepto^^ iradwv &nd o(p0a\p.os \ela f3\fira>ir neither of 
which is in Eusebius. And James is said to have been appointed 
bishop by the Lord. Epiphanius Monachus, in the story of the sons 
of Jude, agrees with C (see p. 42) in using e7rauo-a(z>)ro where Eusebius 
has KaraTrnvo-a , and in speaking of the apery of the brothers. He has 
also the phrase Kara Xpta-TiavSw Stwy^dr, which occurs in C in a different 
connexion (Appendix IV b), but not in this section of Eusebius. 


together we observe, in the first place, that the writer of 
C has much reduced the length of his original : C 3 con 
tains only twenty-one words, E xx. 1-5 contains 200. 
But we notice also that he has been careful to preserve, 
as far as possible, the phrases of Hegesippus. Of his 
twenty-one words, thirteen are found in E. In fact, it 
would scarcely be untrue to say that he never departs from 
the words of Hegesippus except for the purpose of abbre 
viation. Thus a-vvTvy&v sums up the series of events re 
counted in E xx. l b the laying of an information against 
the sons of Jude, and their appearance before the emperor 
in charge of the evocatus ; while TTJV aptrrjv T&V dvSp&v 
indicates by a single word their hard-working honesty 
and faith, described in detail in E xx. 2-4. 

Now we find that the relation between C 1, 2 and E 
xvii, xviii. 1 is similar to that which exists between C 3 
and ^Jxx. 1-5, though the disparity in length between the 
passages to be compared is not so marked in the former 
case as in the latter. In E xvii there are seventy words ; 
in C 1 twenty, of which thirteen are in E. And E xviii. 1 
has twenty-six words, six of which are found among the 
eleven of which C 2 consists. Moreover, as indicating 
anxiety on the part of the writer of C to retain the words 
of his source, we may mention the strange phrase, troXXa 
KaKa e/y TOVS . . . Pa>iJ,aiovs 6v8idfj.ei>o$: we can under 
stand it when we remember that E has TroXXrjv . . . y 
woXXovs eTn^ei^a/iej oy . . co/zorr/ra. 

It is true that some words are found here in C which do 
not occur in E. Such are /ra/ca, rovs kv reXei, viKrjo-as, 
Xpicmav&v, tTroirjo-tv, TrepLtopLo-ev. Most of them may be 
accounted for as arising from the desire of the compiler to 
be brief. In all but two cases (XpurTiavwit and ewoirjcrei ) 
they are in truth shorter equivalents of phrases in E. But 
another fact has to be kept in view. We are here com- 


paring C, not with, the text of Eusebius s source, but with 
"Eusebius s presentation of the source in his own language. 
Now we can form some idea of the way in which Eusebius 
dealt with Hegesippus when he made use of his Memoirs 
without actually transcribing them ; for in two places we 
are able to compare the text of the earlier writer with a 
paraphrase which the historian gives, not in the imme 
diate context of his direct quotation. 1 

The passages transcribed from the Memoirs contain 
together about 80 words, the paraphrases almost exactly 
the same number ; and there are common to the two 
about 30 words. We conclude that in paraphrasing 
Eusebius does not abridge, but that he deals with the 
phraseology pretty freely. 2 In the passages referred to 
not half of the words of Hegesippus remain. Hence it 
might be expected that if the compiler of C worked 
directly on the Memoirs he would preserve in his summary 
not a few words of the original which Eusebius has not 
retained in his paraphrase. Such may be the words 
XpKTTiav(oi> for rjfjLwv, t7Toir](rv for dvKivi s and others of 
those mentioned above. Such also may be fifia>v for rfjs 
KK\rjo-ias and ap^rty in C 3. 3 

The obvious inference from these facts seems to be that 
E xvii, xviii. 1 adheres pretty closely to Hegesippus. And 
we may, at any rate, feel confident that the expressions 
which are common to E xvii. xviii, 1 and C 1, 2 were also 
used by him. 

If it were possible to leave the matter at this point, a 
good many of my readers would perhaps concede that the 

1 H. E. iii. 32. 6 (= iii. 20. 6 ; 32. 2) and iv. 22. 4(= iii. 11). See 
Appendix IHg, i ; IV k. 

2 He omits phrases here and there, but makes up for this by 
substituting for others more wordy equivalents : e. g. Kadiararai 


3 Compare above, p. 45, note. 


hypothesis here suggested has a reasonable degree of pro 
bability. But it now becomes my duty to mention some 
facts, which, though I do not regard them as destroying the 
validity of my argument, must be regarded as in some 
degree mitigating its force. 

The passage which I have called C is, in the Bodleian 
manuscript from which C. de Boor extracted it, one of a 
series extending from f. 212 to f, 216. At the beginning 
of the series stands this title, ^f^ayooyr) iVropico^ SicKfiopw 
OLTTO 7779 Kara crdpKa yevvfia-ttosrov Kvpicv KOU e^T/yr?)^ apyj]v 
\ov(ra dnb TOV TrpatTov \6yov TT)$ eKK\r]o~iao~TiKf}S icrropias 
Evo-/3iov TOV TlanfiiXov. At the end is the note, e a>? TOVTMV 
io-TopeT 6 Evo-/3io$. It is thus clearly intimated that the 
whole series of passages is a collection of excerpts from 
Eusebius s Ecclesiastical History. Moreover, the passages 
are arranged in groups, each group having a heading 
indicating the book of the History from which the excerpts 
in it are taken. 1 

Now it appears that these notes so far agree with the 
phenomena of the passages to which they refer, that the 
large majority of them have a manifest connexion with 
the text of Eusebius, if they cannot in all cases be reckoned 
as summaries of it. It may be asked, Does not all this 
directly contradict the theory that C is an excerpt not 
from Eusebius, but from the source which Eusebius used ? 
And, that being so, is not the theory untenable ? 

Several considerations forbid us to give with confidence 
an affirmative answer to this question. For it must be 
remarked that the notes to which our attention is directed 
are not in complete accordance with the facts. Several 
of the passages in the manuscript are not, as they stand, 
mere epitomes of Eusebius. There is, for example, a 

1 C. de Boor in Zeitsch.f. Kirchengesch. vi. 486, Texte u. Untersucli. 
v. 2. 168. 


reference to Nestorius, in connexion with Paul of Samo- 
sata. There is also a citation from St. Chrysostom. And 
there is a passage about the later kings of the Jews which 
could not have been compiled from Eusebius alone. And 
besides these there are seven pieces, the earlier part of 
each of which may be a summary of a passage in Euse 
bius, while the latter part is certainly taken from the 
writer whom Eusebius happened to be using at the moment 
Papias, Hegesippus, Origeii, or Pierius but from a 
passage which he does not quote. 1 Since the notes in the 
Bodleian MS. are not strictly accurate, it is legitimate to 
inquire with regard to each of these seven, whether the 
compiler has been content to follow Eusebius as far as 
he went, or whether he did not resort in each case for the 
whole of his summary, and not only for its closing 
sentences, to Eusebius s source. 

But, further, these notes are peculiar to the manuscript 
used by C. de Boor. We have therefore no right to 
assume that they were in the collection of excerpts from 
which both it and Cramer s Paris manuscript were ulti 
mately derived. It is at least conceivable that they are 
due to an editorially-minded scribe the writer of the 
Oxford manuscript, or of an exemplar from which it is 
descended. In that case they have no more authority as 
a description of the procedure of the original compiler, 
though they doubtless agree more closely with the facts, 
than the note which appears in the Paris copy as the title 
of the series, EvcrraOiov Em^av^s Svptas eTrtro/Lir) TTJJ 

1 Texte u. Untersuch. v. 2. 168 ff. One of these passages is, of course, 
that with which we are immediately concerned. At least one of the 
others occurs also in the Paris MS., but without the passage of Eusebius 
(H. E. iii. 25) which precedes it in the Oxford MS. In the Paris MS. it 
immediately follows our extract from Hegesippus. See Cramer, ii. 88. 


But whatever weight the objections drawn from the 
notes in the Oxford manuscript may seem to have against 
the argument with which it and its companion manu 
script at Paris supply us, our original conclusion may be 
reached by an entirely different process of reasoning which 
they do not affect. This I shall now proceed to show. 

In passing from the tenth to the eleventh chapter of 
the third book of the Ecclesiastical History we experience 
one of those jolts to which readers of Eusebius soon 
become accustomed. Chapters v-x have dealt with the 
siege of Jerusalem and its historian Josephus, and they 
have been entirely based on his writings. 1 Chapters 
xi-xxiii are a fairly consecutive narrative, dealing for the 
most part with the history of the Christian Church, and 
covering the period from Vespasian to Trajan. Eusebius 
leaves the impression that for it he had recourse to many 
authorities, from one to another of which he passes 
rapidly. I shall here set out a table of the contents of 
chapters xi-xx. stating under each head the authority 
which Eusebius consulted. In doing so, however, I omit 
the records of the successions of emperors and bishops 
which, according to his wont, he inserts here and there 
in his narrative. 

Chap. xi. The election of Symeon as bishop of Jeru 
salem : Aoyoy /care^ei = Hegesippus. 2 
Chap. xii. Vespasian s proceedings against the descen 
dants of David : Aoyo? Kare^t = Hegesippus. 3 
Chap. xvi. Digression on the Epistle of Clement. For 
the disturbance at Corinth which gave occasion to 
it reference is made to Hegesippus. 
Chap. xvii. The persecution of Domitian. No authority 

1 Except the part of chap, v which mentions the flight to Pella. 

2 See above, p. 23. s See above, p. 26. 


Chap, xviii. 1. St. John s banishment : Kare^ei Aoyoy. 
2. The date of the Apocalypse : Irenaeus. 
4. The banishment of Flavia Domitilla : 
ol d-rroQev rod KaQ f)/J.a$ \6yov vvyy panels. 
Chap. xix. Summary account of Domitian s proceedings 
against the grandsons of Jude: iraXaibs Kart\ti 

Chap. xx. 1. More detailed account of the same : Hege- 

7. General account of Domitian s reign : 

8. Nerva s reversal of Domitian s policy : 
oi ypa<f)f) ra Kara TOVS \povovs irapaSovTts. 

9. Return of St. John to Ephesus : 6 TU>I> 
Trap f)iuv ap\ai(>v TrapaSiSaxri Aoyoy. 
An examination of this table reveals the fact that for 
four of the twelve . sections into which chapters xi-xx 
may be divided Hegesippus was used as an authority by 
Eusebius, while statements are introduced by the formula 
KaT\L Aoyo? or an equivalent four or five times, in all 
but two of which the Aoyo? referred to is the Memoirs of 
Hegesippus. And the phrase Kar^ei Aoyo? seems every 
where to imply a written document. 1 It is natural 
to assume that throughout the narrative which we are 
considering it always refers to the same authoritative 
writing. And further, few will read together chapter 
xviii. 1 and chapter xx. 9 without being convinced 
that they are based on a single document. It would 
be arbitrary in the extreme to postulate one source 
for the statement that St. John went to Patmos, and 
another for the statement that he left it. There is 
a minimum of assumption in the further inference that 
that document is the same as that from which Eusebius 
1 See above, p. 21 f. 
E 2 


drew the information contained in the two or three 
remaining paragraphs in which he uses the words 
/carexet Aoyor. The assumption is made, if possible, 
less formidable when we remember that elsewhere in 
his third book Eusebius uses the same formula for the 
Memoirs. In chapter xxxii. 1, 2, he writes, A record 
contains the information (/carex^ Xoyoy) that after Nero 
and Domitian, under him of whose time we are now 
treating, in various places and different cities persecution 
was stirred up against us by risings of the people, in 
which ... we have ascertained that Symeon ended 
his life by martyrdom. And the witness for this fact 
is ... Hegesippus. And then he proceeds to paraphrase 
the account of the martyrdom of Symeon with which we 
are already familiar. 1 

Eusebius gives us no hint as to the source from which 
he borrowed his general account of the reign of Domitian 
in chapter xvii. But its closing words fit in most appro 
priately with chapter xii. Vespasian, says Eusebius in 
chapter xii, attempted to extirpate the house of David, 
and in consequence the Jews were persecuted. The very 
same policy, he says in chapter xvii, led Domitian 
further than his father had gone : he persecuted the 
Christians. The antithesis may appear to suggest that 
these two chapters were founded on passages which lay 
not far apart in the same treatise. But chapter xii 
certainly, as we have seen, came ultimately from 
Hegesippus. And it will be remembered that Hege 
sippus was in the mind of Eusebius, if the Memoirs 
were not actually open before him, when he began to 
write chapter xvii. For chapter xvi ends with a 
reference to that work. And finally it may be added, 
by way of confirmation, that Rufinus believed that 
1 See above, p. 40, and Appendix III 1, m. 


chapter xvii was a quotation from Hegesippus. For 
he renders the closing sentence of chapter xvi thus: 
Verum de seditione facta apud Corinthios ac dissen- 
sione plebis testis valde fidelis Hegesippus indicat, hoc 
modo dicens. Rufinus, it is of course admitted, was mis 
taken in supposing that the sentences which follow make 
any allusion to the affairs of the Church of Corinth. 

Let us assume, then, that all the passages of Eus. H. E. 
iii. 11-20 which we have examined were taken from the 
Memoirs. On that hypothesis we find ourselves able to 
give a reasonable account of the construction of this part 
of the Ecclesiastical History. Eusebius acted, it would 
seem, exactly as we might expect that a historian would 
act whose design was to give a narrative of a series of 
events, which should practically consist of extracts from 
earlier writers. He took as his basis Hegesippus, who 
gave the fullest account known to him of the history 
of the Church during the period with which he was 
concerned. And here and there he added to his Hege- 
sippean narrative illustrations from other authorities 
Irenaeus, Tertullian, Brettius, and the rest. 

Thus by a completely different path we have arrived 
once more at our former conclusion, that Eusebius drew 
from Hegesippus the account of Domitian in chapter xvii 
and the statement of chapter xviii that the Apostle 
St. John was banished under Domitian to Patmos ; and 
we have extended it by tracing to the same source the 
further statement in chapter xx that the apostle returned 
to Ephesus in the reign of Nerva. 

We are now in a position to collect the passages which 
form the second series of extracts from the Memoirs. 
I give a brief summary of each, prefixing to it the 
reference to the place at which it may be found in 
Eusebius s History, and a letter indicating its position in 


Appendix IV. The summaries are arranged in the order in 

which, as I believe, the passages appeared in the Memoirs. 

H. E. iii. 12. (a) Vespasian ordered members of the 

family of David to be sought out. A second 

persecution of the Jews ensued. 

H. E. iii. 17. (b) Description of the cruelty of Domitian, 

resulting in a second persecution of the Christians. 

H. E. iii. 19. (c) Domitian ordered the descendants of 

David to be slain. 

//. E. iii. 18. 1. (d) At this time St. John was banished. 
H. E. iii. 20. 9. (e) He returned to Ephesus under 

H. E. iii. 20. 1. (/) Under the above order (c) the 

grandsons of Jude were arraigned. 
Cramer and de Boor, 11. cc. (g) Their names were 

Zocer and James. 
H. E. iii. 20. 24. (h) They were examined by 

H. E. iii. 20. 5 f. (i) After further examination they 

were dismissed and the persecution was stayed. 
H.E. iii. 32. 6. (Jc) The grandsons of Jude presided 
over every Church and lived until Trajan s reign. 
H. E. iii. 32. 6. (1) Under Trajan Symeon was accused, 

tortured for many days, and crucified. 
H. E. iii. 32. 4. (m) His accusers were slain as being of 

the Jewish royal family. 

The reasons by which the order of the fragments here 
epitomized has been determined must now be stated. We 
may confine our attention for the moment to the group 
b-m, the consideration of a being postponed to a later 
stage of the inquiry. 

In H. E. iii. 20 /, h, i form a continuous narrative, 
the former part of which is quoted from Hegesippus in 
the oratio recta and the latter part in the oratio obliqua, 


including as its closing section a paraphrase of k. 
Eusebius has here, in fact, treated a portion of the 
Memoirs precisely as in H. E. iv. 15 he treated the 
letter of the Smyrnaeans, reproducing it in the manner 
partly of direct and partly of indirect quotation. There 
can be no doubt, therefore, that /. h, i, ~k stood in the 
Memoirs in the order which we have assigned them. 
Again, that I followed k is manifest since they are con 
secutive parts of a passage transcribed from the Memoirs 
in H. E. iii. 32. 6. Further, the epitome quoted above 
from Cramer and de Boor summarizes b, d, h, i in 
this order. Thus the order of the fragments b-m is 
fixed with the exception of c, e, g, m. 

The clause g is known to us from the Cramer-de Boor 
epitome only, and there, though it follows i, its position 
in the Memoirs is obviously undetermined. But it is 
evidently connected with the narrative in /, h, i, and 
I have inserted it after /as the place at which the names 
of the grandsons of Jude would most probably be given. 

If the method of Hegesippus had been strictly chrono 
logical the return of St. John from Patmos in the reign 
of Nerva (e) would have followed i or perhaps Jc. But 
it is not easy to find room for it there. And in fact 
Hegesippus does not arrange his material chronologically. 
The narrative of the election of Symeon to the episcopate 
in or shortly after A. D. 70 is followed by a short account 
of his martyrdom under Trajan. 1 Just in the same way 
it may be supposed that he passed immediately from his 
notice of the banishment of St. John to Patmos, to 
a statement that he left the island some years later. 
Hence e has been placed after d. 

In H. E. iii. 19 c is immediately followed by a para 
phrase of /; and apart from this evidence it is obvious 
1 See Appendix III g-in. 


that Hegesippns must have mentioned the decree under 
which proceedings were taken against the descendants 
of David before recording the trial of Zocer and James 
which presupposed it. But c need not have immediately 
preceded / if this trial was not the first of the kind 
mentioned. It is probable, however, that it came after 
rather than before the general description of Domitian s 
policy in b. Hence in regard to its position it has only 
to be determined whether it preceded or followed d, e. 
Now it is fairly certain that St. John was nearly related 
to Christ, 1 and was therefore a descendant of David and 
liable to be proceeded against under the edict referred 
to in c. We may suppose then without improbability 
that he was banished in accordance with its provisions, 
and that Hegesippus said so, though the summaries of 
his statements about St. John which are in our hands 
do not inform us of the fact. If we make this assump 
tion and place c before d the whole passage acquires 
a logical coherence which it otherwise lacks. Domitian 
issues the edict against the descendants of David. Under 
it John is banished, and Zocer and James are brought 
before the Emperor. 

As to the position of m I do not feel so confident. It 
certainly followed one of the two accounts given by 
Hegesippus of the martyrdom of Symeon. Eusebius 
seems 2 to connect it with the earlier of the two. 3 But 
on the other hand the incident occurred under Trajan, 
and would naturally find place in the record of the 
events of that reign. Moreover, the later account of the 
martyrdom is fuller than the earlier, and the fate of the 
accusers of Symeon is just such a thing as might be 

1 See Westcott on St. John xix. 25. 

2 //. E. iii. 32. 3 f. 

3 //. R. iii. 32. 3. See Appendix III m. 


passed over in the more succinct and related in the more 
detailed narrative. For these reasons I have put it after Z. 
A few words must here be said about the statement 
made by Eusebius, in a passage in which he is para 
phrasing Hegesippus, that Symeon attained an end like 
to the suffering of the Lord . l Of this clause Lightfoot 
remarks 2 that it is * apparently in the words or at least 
according to the sentiment of Hegesippus, and one is 
tempted to assume that it is a comment by that writer 
on the fact that Symeon was crucified. But, though it 
is certainly in Hegesippus s manner, 3 it is also in the 
manner of many of the early martyrologists, not except 
ing Eusebius himself, as Lightfoot has shown. 4 And 
what appears to me conclusive against the claim of this 
clause to represent otherwise unknown words of Hege 
sippus is the fact that Eusebius elsewhere, in a precisely 
similar connexion, uses a phrase almost, if not entirely, 
identical with it. Of the Apostle Peter he is represented 
by an early Syriac translator as saying, In the likeness 
of the suffering of our Lord he suffered . 5 The under 
lying Greek perhaps only differed from our clause in one 
word. In the one place as in the other we have a mere 

1 H. E. iii. 32. 2. See Appendix IV 1. 

2 Ignatius, vol. i, p. 596. 

3 See H. E. ii. 23. 10, 11, 16, and Lightfoot, 1. c. 

4 Lightfoot quotes M. P. (Grk.) 6. 5, to which may be added ib. 8. 10, 
11 ; 11. 1, 24. It is remarkable, however, that in paraphrasing 
documents Eusebius sometimes omits comparisons between the 
sufferings of the martyrs and the passion of Christ. Cp. H. E. iv. 15. 
11 f. with Mar. Pol. 6 f., and note that in his paraphrase (H. E. iii. 11) 
of the passage quoted from Hegesippus in H. E. iv. 22. 4 he takes no 
notice of the words ws <al 6 <vpios eVi ro> aura; Xoyw : see Appendix Illg. 

5 If. P. (Syr.) Pref. (Cureton, p. ^) +^ ^o? <H*~? )!CL*>,^>O. 
In the immediately preceding words ^N^f ^y>l oo we have 
perhaps an attempt to bring out the force of anrjveyKaTo TC\OS. Cp. 
Cureton, p. 44. 


periphrasis of Eusebius for the statement of the source 
used that the martyr was put to death by crucifixion. 

We are now able to regard the whole group b-m as a 
series of consecutive, or nearly consecutive, passages from 
the Memoirs of Hegesippus. In what relation does this 
group stand to that with which we were concerned at an 
earlier stage, and which ended with the shorter account 
of the martyrdom of Symeon ? It is evident that the 
arrangement of each group is roughly, though not exactly, 
chronological. That this arrangement was deliberate is 
implied in the formal introduction to the reign of 
Domitian in the second group, which I have marked b. 
But if so the inference is near at hand that the group 
which on the whole deals with the later period followed 
that which deals with the earlier ; or, in other words, that 
b-m had a place in the Memoirs subsequent rather than 
anterior to the first group. 

That this was the case will further appear from a 
passage which has been already quoted. According to 
Eusebius l Hegesippus in his narrative about certain 
heretics goes on to state that the above-mentioned 
[Symeon], having at this time been charged by these, and 
having suffered many and various tortures as a Christian 
for very many days, and very greatly astonished the 
judge himself and his attendants, attained an end similar 
to the passion of the Lord . 

It has been pointed out that the first clause of this 
sentence refers to the passage in which Hegesippus 
speaks of Thebuthis as the earliest propagator of heresy in 
the Church of Jerusalem. 2 There are, it is true, other 
references in the extant fragments to heretics, 3 but an 

1 H. E. iii. 32. 2. 

2 H. E. iv. 22. 5. See Appendix III1. 

3 H. E. ii. 23. 8 ; iii. 19 ; iv. 22. 7. See Appendix II, III e, IVf. 


inspection of the passages will satisfy the reader that none 
of them could have introduced an account of the martyr 
dom of Symeon. The second clause couples with it the 
shorter notice of the death of Symeon. 1 That notice is 
quoted by Eusebius immediately after the sentence which 
we are considering; and it accounts for the statement 
that Symeon suffered torture because he was a Christian, 
though it does not fully justify it, since it makes his 
descent from David the primary charge. The statement 
could not have been founded upon anything in the second 
narrative of the martyrdom, nor upon any of the other 
fragments of the Memoirs. But from this second narra 
tive the remainder of the sentence is plainly drawn. It 
alone mentions the prolonged torture of Symeon, the 
amazement of the judge and others who were present, 
and the precise manner of his death. And the second 
narrative is actually transcribed lower down in the same 
chapter of the History. 2 Thus in one sentence Eusebius 
alludes to three distinct fragments of the Memoirs ; and 
the probability is that he alludes to them in the order in 
which they followed one another in that work. Hence 
we conclude that in it the fuller account of the martyr 
dom, and along with it the whole group of passages to 
which it belongs, followed the shorter, though not neces 
sarily in immediate sequence. 

The order of the two groups of extracts from the 
Memoirs having been determined it becomes possible to 
discuss the question, To which of these two groups does 
the passage about Vespasian (a) belong, if indeed it is to 
be reckoned with either ? And what was its place in the 
Memoirs ? 

If Hegesippus had adopted a strictly chronological 

1 H. E. iii. 32. 3. See Appendix III m. 

2 Ibid. 6. See Appendix IV 1. 


arrangement, it manifestly ought to have been assigned 
to the first group. But it is exceedingly difficult to find 
a place for it there. Chronologically it might be put after 
the notice of the election of Symeon, but in such a posi 
tion it would cohere very imperfectly with the context. 
And we have seen that Eusebius seems to imply that it 
did not immediately follow that section of the Memoirs.^ 
We may conclude that it is not to be placed before the 
first notice of the martyrdom of Symeon. 

On the other hand, it has a remarkable feature charac 
teristic of the second group. In the passages belonging 
to that group special prominence is given to kinship to 
Christ or descent from David as a ground of accusation 
before the magistrates. This is first alluded to at the 
end of the first group as the main reason for the con 
demnation of Symeon. 2 It is explicitly mentioned as 
the charge made against the grandsons of Jude. 3 And 
it was because they were said to be of the Jewish royal 
family that the accusers of Symeon were put to death. 4 
Moreover, as we have seen, it is not improbable that it 
was alleged as the reason of St. John s exile at Patmos. 
All this is in keeping with the information given in a 
that Vespasian ordered the descendants of David to be 
sought for. Such a statement may very well have 
followed immediately, or at no long interval, after the 
end of the first group, and as an introduction to the 
second. We may suppose the sequence of thought to 
have been of this kind. Hegesippus gave an account of 
the episcopate of Symeon, ending with a short statement 
of the issue of the malice of the heretical informers. 
This involved the assertion that the principal charge 
against him was his connexion with the family of David. 

1 See above, p. 26. 2 Appendix III m. 

3 Appendix IV f. < Appendix IV m. 


Now this was a charge which many of his readers might 
not understand. It was probably unique in the annals of 
martyrdom that a Christian should be put to death on 
such a pretext. It was necessary therefore for Hegesip- 
pus to show that his narrative was not encumbered with 
an improbability. He had to find other cases in which 
trials took place on the charge of relationship to the 
Jewish royal family. The first of his precedents is the 
persecution of the Jews, based on the principle that the 
descendants of David ought not to be permitted to live, 
and inaugurated by an order that inquisition should be 
made for them. He passes on to Domitian s persecution 
of the Christians. It also began with a similar order. 
As a result St. John, the Lord s kinsman, was sent into 
exile, and the two grandsons of Jude were dragged before 
the Emperor himself. It was nothing wonderful if 
Symeon was arraigned before Trajan s proconsul on a 
similar charge. 1 And so he returns once more to the 
incidents of the martyrdom. 

That we have found the true position of the reference 
to Vespasian is confirmed by a fact which has been already 
mentioned for a somewhat different purpose. 2 This 
passage is continuous with what we regard as its follow 
ing context, not only because it is the first of a series of 
precedents, but because it stands in a relation of antithesis 
to the passage which comes immediately after it in our 
arrangement. 3 The review of the policy of Domitian 

1 eVt r<a aurw Xo-yo). This phrase indicates the real significance of the 
narrative about the grandsons of Jude. Valois takes it to mean quod 
Christi fidem praedicaret 1 ; but I do not think his reference to the 
use of the same words in a wholly different context (H. E. iv. 22. 4) 
will carry conviction. It appears obviously to signify here on the 
same charge as the grandsons of Jude , i. e. of relationship to David. 

2 Above, p. 52. 

3 H. E. iii. 17. See Appendix IVb. 


demands, by way of introduction, some notice of Ves 
pasian ; for it indicates a contrast between the policy of 
the two Emperors. If the passages about Vespasian and 
Domitian are both from the pen of Hegesippus they must 
have been in close proximity in his book. 


There remain no more than three or four short passages 
of the Memoirs of Hegesippus expressly quoted or alluded 
to by Eusebius in his History. The discussion of them 
will be fitly introduced by pointing out the probable 
bearing on Hegesippus s argument against his heretical 
opponents of the page of history contained in the 
fragments with which we have till now been concerned. 

Amongst those with whom he contended, as Eusebius 
implies, 1 were the Saturnilians, Basilidians, and Carpocra- 
tians, with possibly the Simonians and Menandrianists. 
All these were the offspring, according to Hegesippus, of 
the seven Jewish sects. 2 Accordingly he shows, in the 
passages quoted above, the evil deeds of their progenitors. 
From them sprang false christs, false prophets, false 
apostles, who destroyed the unity of the Church at 
Jerusalem ; 3 they were the informers at whose instance 
the trial of the two grandsons of Jude was held ; 4 they 
brought about the death of Symeon. 5 And he is careful 
also to record the retribution which came upon them 
when their own weapons were turned against themselves. 
The accusers of Symeon were put to death on the very 
charge which they preferred against him. 6 

Again, a stock argument with controversial writers on 

1 H. E. iv. 7. 15 ; 8. 1. 2 H. E. iv. 22 5. 

3 Appendix III 1. < Appendix IV f. 

6 Appendix III m, IV 1. 6 Appendix IV m. 


the orthodox side was the recent origin of heresy, as 
contrasted with the deposit handed down from the 
apostles by the regular episcopal succession. This argu 
ment is applied by Hegesippus to the case of the Church 
of Jerusalem. He tells us that heresy first sprang into 
avowed existence there under the leadership of Thebuthis, 
in the time of Symeon. 1 On the other hand, James the 
Just was the first bishop and a colleague of the apostles ; 
Symeon succeeded him after a regular election with 
apostolic sanction. But here there comes into view a 
feature of the argument which is not found in other 
writers. We have seen that kinship with the Lord is 
prominent in the second group of fragments as rendering 
persons who could claim it liable to persecution. In both 
groups stress is laid upon it from another point of view. 
Relatives of Christ had special honour in the Church. 
They with the apostles were recognized as in a unique 
sense guardians of the deposit of truth. James the Just 
was the Lord s brother. 2 Symeon was His cousin ; and 
he was chosen as bishop on this account. 3 Those who 
elected him were the surviving apostles and disciples of 
Christ, together with His kinsmen according to the flesh. 4 
The grandsons of Jude presided over every church as 
martyrs and of the Lord s kindred . 5 Thus James and 
Symeon seem to have been custodians of orthodox 
doctrine not more as bishops of Jerusalem than in virtue 
of their close relationship to Christ. 6 Accordingly it 

1 Appendix III 1. 2 Appendix III c. 8 Appendix III i. 

4 Appendix Illh, i. 5 Appendix IV k. 

6 In common with the other relatives of the Lord they had an 
additional claim to be authoritative exponents of orthodoxy. They 
were martyrs . Such also were St. John, Zocer, and James, in the large 
sense in which Hegesippus used the word. That Hegesippus laid 
stress on this fact in the connexion which has been indicated is 


was in the reign of Trajan when the grandsons of Jude, 
possibly the last surviving near relatives of Christ, had 
passed away, 1 when Symeon was crucified, 2 when St. John 
was in extreme old age living at Ephesus, 3 or already 
dead 4 that heresy gained a firm foothold in the Christian 

It must be observed that just at this point, when he 
has indicated the moment of the introduction of hetero 
dox teaching, Hegesippus s sketch of the history of the 
Church of Jerusalem, and consequently the argument 
founded upon it, seems to have come to an end. For 
though Eusebius gives a list of the bishops up to the reign 
of Hadrian, and tells us that they were short-lived, 5 and 
later on adds a list of their successors, 6 he tells us nothing 
else about the fortunes of the Church from the reign of 
Trajan to the end of the second century, except the fact 
that after the siege under Hadrian it became a Gentile 
community. For the siege itself he seems to depend on 
Aristo of Pella. 7 It is scarcely conceivable that if 
Hegesippus had carried his history beyond the death of 
Symeon Eusebius would not have used the material thus 

If I have with any measure of correctness interpreted 
the argument of Hegesippus based on the history of the 
Church of Jerusalem, we shall gain from it some help 
towards surmounting the difficulties which encompass the 
group of passages which must next claim our attention. It 
relates to a journey of the writer to Rome, in the course 
of which he made a stay of some length at Corinth. This 

obvious from the remark about the last two quoted in the text. He 
was but following the tendency of his age. 

1 Appendix IV k. 2 Appendix III m, IV 1. 3 Appendix IV e. 

4 Irenaeus ap. //. E. iii. 23. 3. 

5 H. E. iv. 5. 6 H. E. iv. 6. 4 ; v. 12. 7 //. E. iv. 6. 3. 


journey would not have been recorded in the Memoirs 
if it had not supplied material for his polemic. And if 
Hegesippus used the knowledge acquired during his tour 
about the Church of Corinth or those of Rome and other 
cities as a basis of argument, we might expect that the 
argument founded upon it would be of much the same 
kind as that which he founded upon his fuller knowledge 
of the Church of Jerusalem. 

The group with which we are now concerned is not a 
large one. Eusebius s contributions to our knowledge of 
it are almost confined to a single chapter of his History 
Bk. iv, chap. 22. In that chapter we have a direct 
quotation from the Memoirs containing a succinct 
account of the journey. Eusebius tells us that it 
was preceded by some information about the Epistle of 
Clement to the Corinthians. Now from an earlier part 
of his work we learn that Hegesippus had written about 
the schism which was the occasion of the Epistle. 1 Since 
the narrative of the schism would naturally precede the 
account of the letter which it called forth, we may count 
it as the first passage of the group. Of the second pas 
sage, containing * some things about the Epistle, we 
have information independent of Eusebius. It included at 
least one quotation which, as we have seen, 2 Epiphanius 

Passing now to Eusebius s direct quotation from that 
section of the Memoirs which immediately followed the 
notice of Clement s letter, we find indications that it is 
not a single fragment, but a collection of two or more. 
Eusebius here, as in other extracts from Hegesippus, 3 
omits passages which do not suit his purpose, without 
directing attention to the fact that he has done so. He 

1 H. E. iii. 16. See Appendix Va. 

2 Above, p. 9 f. See Appendix V b. 3 Above, pp. 20 ff. 


begins this quotation with a sentence to the effect that 
the Church of Corinth remained orthodox to the time 
of Bishop Primus. And then he proceeds, with whom 
(ol?) I made acquaintance (owl/ua) on my voyage to 
Rome. l The relative with whom has no antecedent. 
Thus we have reason to suspect a lacuna between the first 
and second clauses of the transcript. Our suspicion is 
confirmed when we turn to the paraphrase of the passage 
given earlier in the chapter. 2 In it Eusebius says that 
Hegesippus made the acquaintance (o-uj>e///etej>) of very 
many (TrXeiVroiy) bishops on his way to Rome, and found 
all of them orthodox. This would be a gross exaggeration 
if only Primus of Corinth had been visited by Hegesippus ; 
scarcely less so if Eusebius intended to include the three 
bishops of Rome subsequently mentioned. Before the 
relative clause there must therefore have been a passage 
in which appeared the names of many bishops. It 
probably contained much more, but how much, or of what 
kind, it is vain to speculate. 

Having stated that he stayed with the Corinthians for 
a good while, and was refreshed by their orthodoxy, 3 the 
quotation goes on to relate that he reached Rome and 
made a succession-list (or, as some will have it, remained 
there ) up to the episcopate of Anicetus, whose deacon was 
Eleutherus. And after Anicetus , proceeds Hegesippus, 
4 Soter succeeds, and after him Eleutherus. 4 Then comes 
the remark, In every succession and in every city (the 
doctrine) is such as the law and the prophets and the 
Lord proclaim. 5 Here several reflections suggest them 
selves. The extreme brevity of the notice of the Roman as 
compared with that of the Corinthian Church is surprising. 
For the latter included much to which Eusebius barely 

1 Appendix V c, d. 2 Appendix V d. 

3 Appendix V e. 4 Appendix V f. 5 Appendix V k. 


alludes, and apparently some things to which he does not 
even allude. Then the character of the notice is peculiar. 
In the single sentence quoted by Eusebius an act of Hege- 
sippus after his arrival at Rome is mentioned, and the 
names of three successive bishops are given ; but there is 
nothing more. There is not a word which could have con 
tributed anything to his contention against the heretics. 
Most remarkable of all is the absence of any special com 
mendation of the Church of Rome for orthodoxy, such as 
that which had been bestowed on the Church of Corinth. 
For the next sentence does not relate specially to Rome. 
It is a summing up of the experience of Hegesippus through 
out the entire period of his travels. It speaks of every city 
and every succession as being sound in the faith. It is 
impossible to believe that it could have followed without 
break on the bald statement that Eleutherus succeeded 
Soter as bishop of Rome. It seems manifest, therefore, 
that there is here another lacuna in Eusebius s transcript. 
He has omitted almost all that Hegesippus himself would 
have regarded as of special importance in his account of 
his stay at Rome. 

Whether the two lacunae which have been pointed 
out are the only ones in this quotation it is impossible to 
determine. I am content to say that we are not entitled 
to assume so much. Not only, however, does Eusebius 
omit portions, and apparently large portions of the 
section which he transcribes; it is clear that he also 
leaves unnoticed much of the preceding context. Only 
the scantiest allusion is made to Hegesippus s remarks 
about Clement s Epistle. The historian has no interest 
in them ; they are referred to, not for their own sake, 
but merely for the purpose of indicating the place in the 
Memoirs of the passages on which he desires to fix 
attention. He says nothing at all about the schism at 


Corinth. And he gives us no information about the pur 
pose of the journey, though there must have been some 
formal intimation of these things in the Memoirs. 1 

Now why did Eusebius omit so much and quote so 
little ? What was his principle of selection ? "We may 
infer it, I believe, from the summary with which he 
introduces his quotation. His main interest, it appears, 
was the testimony of Hegesippus to the universal agree 
ment of the bishops in doctrine. To mark its significance 
it was essential to mention the voyage to Rome which 
gave Hegesippus the means of knowing the opinions of 
the bishops of Western Christendom, and to give a general 
indication of his route. It is evident that there was 
much more than this in the passage which lay open before 
him. But with the exception of part of one sentence 
Eusebius actually quotes nothing which is not included 
within the limits thus defined. The exception is easily 
explained. He had evidently little material for fixing 
the chronology of Hegesippus s life. 2 But this section of 
the Memoirs supplied an indication of date in the reference 
to Bishops Anicetus, Soter, and Eleutherus. Accordingly 
the sentence in which they are mentioned is given in 
full. And elsewhere Eusebius seems to use it for the 
purpose of determining the duration of Hegesippus s 
sojourn at Rome. 3 

Now pruning carried out on so drastic a method is 
certain to result, not in the clearing away of useless 
branches, but in the loss of some parts of the main stem. 

1 As Zahn remarks (p. 246), such expressions as TrXeW V 
yfv6p.evos * v Pw/ifl cannot have been the earliest references to the 

2 Note the very unsatisfactory evidence made use of in H. E. iv. 

3 H. E. iv. 11. 7. See Appendix V f. 


Eusebius 110 doubt retained all of Hegesippus s travel 
narrative that mattered from what happened to be his 
point of view at the moment. But it is probable that 
what he omitted was not only of greater bulk, but also, 
from the point of view of the modern historian or 
the ancient theologian, of greater value than what he 

This may be made clearer by an examination of the 
portion of our document relating to Corinth. It has been 
suggested that Hegesippus s treatment of this Church 
probably resembled his treatment of the Church of Jeru 
salem. And what we know of the facts answers to this 
expectation. Hegesippus gave some account of the history 
of the Jerusalem community from the Apostolic age 
onwards. There was a similar narrative of the history of 
the Church of Corinth, which certainly included the schism 
in the time of Domitian, and may have begun much 
further back. In regard to Jerusalem, again, he mainly 
concerned himself with the qualifications, the appointment, 
and the death of the successive bishops. It may have 
been so in regard to Corinth also ; for it is significant 
that the Epistle of Clement is treated of in connexion 
with that Church, and not in connexion with Rome. It 
may be (who can say ?) that the outcome of the schism, 
and the letter which followed it, was the appointment of 
the first monarchical bishop in that city, and that in that 
fact lay the interest of both for Hegesippus. If so, we 
are much the poorer for the loss of the part of the Memoirs 
which had to do with the Corinthian divisions and their 
consequences. But again, the remark that the Church of 
Corinth was orthodox till the time of Primus recalls the 
parallel statement that the Church of Jerusalem was 
a virgin, untainted by false teaching, up to the time 
of Symeon. The parallel may extend further. It is 


commonly assumed that Primus was bishop of Corinth 
when Hegesippus journeyed to Eome, and that he was one 
of the bishops (he is sometimes spoken of as if he were 
the only one) whose acquaintance Hegesippus made on the 
voyage. But there is no warrant for the hypothesis in 
the extant fragments of the travel narrative. We cannot 
be sure that he was still bishop when Hegesippus touched 
at Corinth, but even if he was, it is quite possible that he 
was mentioned, and that the survey of the history of the 
Corinthian Church ended with him, because in his epis 
copate heresy got a foothold in the Christian community 
there, just as the history of the Church of Jerusalem ended 
with Symeon because in his days Thebuthis introduced 
false doctrine. And lastly, at Jerusalem the bishops and 
relatives of the Lord were the guardians of the faith. In 
like manner these fragments show that in Corinth and 
other western cities, according to the view of Hegesippus, 
the bishops for here obviously kinship with the Lord 
was out of the question were invested with the same 
trust. And thus his intercourse with many bishops in 
the West provided him with a fresh argument against 
heresy. Wherever he went he found the rulers of the 
churches professing a doctrine identical with his own. 
Orthodoxy was maintained, to use the language of a later 
age, not only semper but ubique et ab omnibus. 

Before leaving the fragments preserved by Eusebius it 
may be well to say a word about a reading which has 
given rise to much discussion the words SiaSoyjiv 
eTroirjcrdfjLTiv. 1 With the single exception of the version 
of Eufinus, who renders l permansi inibi , all the diplo 
matic evidence is in favour of the genuineness of these 
words. It has been supposed that Eufinus read SiarpL^v 
But this is far from certain: he may have 
1 3. See Appendix Vf. 


resorted to conjectural emendation, or, as Harnack 
suggests, 1 he may simply have borrowed * permansi from 
H.E. iv. 11. 7. The fact is that Eufinus deserted his Greek 
on very slight provocation. A few lines higher up it can 
scarcely be doubted that he had before him the words 


7rAea>*> ei? Ptoj-rjis, KOL 

, and he translated them quern Eomam navi- 
gans vidi et resedi cum eo apud Corinthum . But even 
if Eufinus could be shown to have used a copy in which 
the reading differed from that of the printed texts, its 
testimony could not stand against the consent of all other 
authorities, including the Syriac version, which is of a date 
only a few years later than the autograph. 

But it is said that the words are meaningless and 
therefore must be emended. Without subscribing to the 
dictum that the phrase is absolutely without sense, one 
may admit that it is difficult. The Syriac translator, 
Nicephorus, and Eufinus (if he read as we do) could make 
nothing of it. 2 But is not that very fact an argument in 
favour of its genuineness ? Eusebius s Histo ry was a much 
read, much copied, and early translated book. If Eusebius 
wrote the word SiaSoxnv in error, why did no one correct 
it ? Had none of the scholars into whose hands the History 
came a copy of Hegesippus with the true reading ? The 
wonder is that with or without such authority words of 
so great difficulty remained without alteration. But 
Harnack 3 argues that we have an authoritative pro 
nouncement on the question from Eusebius himself. He 
appeals to the statement, 4 Hegesippus relates that under 
Anicetus he took up his abode at Eome and remained 
there (-rrapa^lvat re avroOi) until the episcopate of 
Eleutherus. This, it is urged, proves that Eusebius either 

1 Chmnologie, i. 182 f. 2 Ibid. ; cp. Zahn, p. 244. 

3 1. c . 4 H. E. iv. 11. 7. See Appendix V f. 


read in our passage SiaTpift^v (ray Starpiftas 
or else understood StaSo^rjv kTTOLrjcrd^v as meaning * I 
remained . I cannot but think that this criticism is 
somewhat hasty. It seems to take for granted that a 
single sentence quoted by Eusebius is all that Hegesippus 
wrote about his visit to Rome. Otherwise, why is it 
impossible that Eusebius should have learned the date of 
his arrival there from some other sentence ? But whether 
based on our fragment or not Eusebius s statement really 
makes the reading SiarpL^v eTroiJ/o-a// 7 ?* impossible. How, 
after reading Hegesippus s own words that he remained 
in Rome up to Anicetus , could any one suppose that he 
arrived under Anicetus and remained until the time of 
Eleutherus ? x On the other hand, if Eusebius took the 
words 8iaSo\r]v 7roirj(Td/j.r)i>, as they have been generally 
understood, to mean I made a succession-list , the inference 
that Anicetus was bishop when Hegesippus reached Rome 
and made the list was just as logical as the inference that 
he was still in Rome when he ascertained that Eleutherus 
succeeded Soter . 

Since it seems now to be a commonly held opinion that 
Hegesippus wrote Siarpift^v enoLTja-dfjirji/ or some similar 
phrase, it may be well to point out that in two other places 
he expresses the sense which such a phrase is supposed to 
convey, and that in neither does he use a periphrasis. He 
remained with the Corinthians many days, and in telling 
us so he writes o-vvSitrpi^lra. 2 In an earlier passage he 
tells us that after taking up their abode at Pella the 
Christians of Jerusalem remained there . And again he 

1 Harnack goes near to giving up his case when he writes, Er (Eu 
sebius) erinnert sich der Stelle als laute sie, ywopevos 8e tv Pco^ KO.T 

AVIKTJTOV rets 8iarpi(3as eVoi^o-a/ur/i/ avTodi fJ-(XP ls *E\f vOepov. So after all 

H. E. iv. 11. 7 witnesses to a text absolutely different from any that 
has ever been maintained to be genuine ! 

2 H. E. iv. 22. 2. See Appendix Ve. 


seems to have used the verb SiaTpiftfiv. 1 It may also be 
remarked that in the two examples cited as parallel to 
dLarpLfirjv e-rroLrja-d^v in the sense I tarried , the phrase 
actually used is ras 8iaTpi/3as tTroitTro. 2 The article, the 
plural instead of the singular, and the imperfect tense 
instead of the aorist are all worthy of note. And we must 
not fail to observe that if in our passage we read SiaTpL^rjv 
7roirj(rd/ji7)v and translate I tarried , some such adverb as 
avToOi is necessary to complete the sense. The derivation 
of 8ia8o\riv from SiarpilSrjv by mere clerical error is not 
probable ; its derivation from ray Siarpifids is less so : that 
it should have been deliberately substituted for either is 
scarcely possible. 

One may well be reluctant to abandon a reading so 
strongly supported by external evidence and tran- 
scriptional probability until it is clearly shown that no 
meaning can be attached to it consistent with its probable 
context, due allowance being made for the possibility o 
a solecism in such a writer as Hegesippus. But to this 
question we shall return hereafter. 

Meanwhile, an attempt must be made to recover some 
passages of the Memoirs to which Eusebius makes no 
reference. We again invoke the aid of Epiphanius. "We 
have already seen that he quotes from them a few words 
of the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. 3 This 
quotation is made in Haer. 27. 6. Let us see whether there 
is any indication in the context that he made further use 
of the book which is thus proved to have been open before 
him while he wrote. 

At the beginning of the same paragraph Epiphanius 

1 Epiph. Haer. 29. 7 ; 30. 2. See Appendix III f., and above, p. 33. 

2 H. E. iv. 11. 11 ; vi. 19. 16. And so also Epiph. Haer. 24. 1 (p. 68 c) ; 
Chron. Paschal, s. a. 303 (Dindorf, p. 515). 

3 Above, p. 9. Appendix Vb. 


speaks of one Marcellina, a follower of Carpocrates, who 
taught in Rome under Anicetus. In doing so he evidently 
uses the very words of his authority ; for what he says is 

A certain Marcellina who had been led into error by 
them (the Carpocratians) paid us a visit some time ago. 
She was the ruin of a great number of persons in the time 
of Anicetus, bishop of Rome, who succeeded Pius and his 
predecessors. 1 

The words * paid us a visit (rjXQev els ^a?) are evidently 
taken over from a contemporary document, the phraseo 
logy of which Epiphanius, with a carelessness of which 
we find other examples in the Panarion, 2 has forgotten to 
alter so as to make it suit its new environment. Further, 
if the next sentence is from the same document it would 
seem that it was written after, though not very long after, 3 
the episcopate of Anicetus. And the expression bishop 
of Rome may perhaps indicate that the writer was not 
himself a Roman. That Epiphanius believed that he was 
in Rome when he was visited by Marcellina, and that the 
visit was paid under Anicetus, becomes plain when we 
glance at the next page, where he repeats the information 
in a somewhat different form : In the times, as we have 
said, of Anicetus, the above-named Marcellina having come 
to Rome, &c. 4 The record which Epiphanius uses in this 
place seems, therefore, to have come from the pen of some 
stranger who was in Rome in the time of Anicetus, and 

1 Appendix V h, i. The translation is that of Lightfoot (Clem. i. 
329). I am not sure that the last words, TWV avcorepa), should not be 
rendered those mentioned above . If so, the predecessors of Pius 
must have been mentioned in an earlier passage of the writing from 
which Epiphanius is quoting. Cp. below, p. 84. 

2 See below, p. 127. 

Cp. fjdij TTCOS-, some time ago/ which implies that the visit was 
recent, 4 Both passages will be found in Appendix V h. 


to have been written not long after the death of that 
bishop. Now if we are to believe Eusebius l Hegesippus 
came to Eome under Anicetus, and there is evidence that 
he wrote his Memoirs under Eleutherus, 2 who became 
bishop nine years after Anicetus s death. Is Epiphanius 
then quoting from the Memoirs? The suggestion is at 
least plausible. 

But there is other evidence in favour of it. The state 
ment about Marcellina is found also in the chapter about 
the Carpocratians in Irenaeus s work Against Heresies. 3 
Now the whole of that chapter has obviously a close 
connexion with the passage of Epiphanius in which the 
notice of Marcellina occurs. In both we are told (1) that 
the Carpocratians sealed members of their sect by 
branding them on the right ear, (2) that Marcellina made 
many converts under Anicetus, (3) that the Carpocratians 
were called Gnostics, (4) that they had images of Christ 
painted or formed of other material , which were said to 
have been made by Pilate while Christ was on earth, 
(5) that these images were placed beside images of philo 
sophers such as Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle, and (6) that 
they were venerated with Gentile rites. 4 But Epiphanius 
certainly did not here borrow from Irenaeus. Irenaeus 
says that Marcellina came to Eome , Epiphanius that she 
came to us . A late writer copying Irenaeus could not 
have substituted the latter for the former. And Epiphanius 
adds some particulars which are not in Irenaeus and 
which he can scarcely have invented. He mentions the 
instruments with which the branding was performed, he 

1 H.E. iv. 11. 7. 2 Appendix V f. 

3 Adv. Haer. i. 25. 6. See Appendix V h. 

4 The first statement in Epiphanius precedes the first, the last four 
follow the second notice of Marcellina, where he returns, after a 
digression, to his original authority. 


expands the other material of Irenaeus into gold and 
silver and other material , and he refers at the end of the 
passage to the doctrine of the Carpocratians that salvation 
was of the soul only and not of the body. Thus it remains 
that Irenaeus and Epiphanius based their statements on 
a common document. No work, except the Memoirs of 
Hegesippus, can be suggested which fulfils the necessary 
conditions of time and place. 1 

Attention may be called to another point of contact 
between this passage of Epiphanius and the Memoirs. 
Hegesippus, 2 like the author of Epiphanius s source, classed 
the Carpocratians among the Gnostics, and it seems to 
be implied by Eusebius that they were one of the heretical 
sects against which he contended. 3 But we may go 
further. In the same context, and shortly before he 
comes to name Hegesippus as one of the champions of the 
faith against heretics, Eusebius makes reference to the 
chapter of Irenaeus on the Carpocratians : Irenaeus also 
writes that contemporary with these (Saturninus and 
Basilides) was Carpocrates, the father of another heresy 
called that of the Gnostics. 4 Whence did he borrow 
this description of Carpocrates? Not, certainly, from 
Irenaeus ; for he says no more than that the followers of 
Carpocrates called themselves Gnostics. But in the 
parallel passage Epiphanius tells us that thence i. e.from 
the teaching of Marcellina at Borne, or perhaps from the 
Carpocratians generally has come the origin (apx 7 ?) of 
those who are called Gnostics . 5 In tracing the origin of 
Gnosticism to the teaching of Carpocrates did Epiphanius 

1 Towards the end of the section Epiphanius uses the phrase 
MapxeXXiVa eV Pa^ ytvo^vr) ... q$cWe. Cp. Hegesippus (Appendix V f), 

yfvo/ifvos de cv Pco/n?; . . . e n-oiqo-a/xqi/. 

2 H. E. iv. 22. 5. See Appendix III 1. " H. E. iv. 7 f. 

4 H. E. iv. 7. 9, referring to Iren. Adr. Haer. i. 25. 

5 Haer. 27. 6 (p. 108). See Appendix Vj. 


follow the source more exactly than Irenaeus ? And in 
dubbing him the father of the heresy called that of the 
Gnostics does Eusebius echo the same phrase ? l If so, 
we have an indication that the source was known to 
Eusebius and was in fact the Memoirs. That dp\rj (or a 
cognate) was actually the word used by Hegesippus may 
appear likely if we recall the words in which he speaks of 
the first entrance of heresy into the Church of Jerusalem, 
OVTTCD yap e(f)OapTO a.Koal<s fJLaraiais apxerai 8e 6 @/3ov0is . . . 
VTrocfideiptiv airb TMV iirra alpea-ewv. 2 In the present passage 
all that is meant may perhaps be that the arrival of 
Marcellina marked the beginning of Gnostic teaching in 
Rome, just as the conduct of Thebuthis marked the 
beginning of vain doctrine in Jerusalem, though 
Eusebius in both cases has given the words a wider 

Immediately after his first notice of Marcellina Epi- 
phanius proceeds to give a list of the bishops of Rome, 
beginning with the apostles and bishops, Peter and 
Paul , and ending with Clement. Then comes a long 
digression about Clement, which has nothing to do with 
his main subject, the Carpocratian heresy. Near the end 
of the digression he mentions incidentally that the two 
bishops who followed next after the apostles, Linus and 
Cletus, ruled each for twelve years. Then he once more 
sets out the order of succession of the bishops, this time 
carrying it on to Anicetus, and resumes his account of the 

1 The phrase in each case is remarkable : Eus. aip<r(a>s TYJS -rwv yw- 
(TTIKWV ciriK\r)0fi<Ti)f. Epiph. JVUXTTIKKIV T>V KaXovfjievav, Iren. Gnosticos 
se vocant (the Greek is unfortunately wanting). It seems as though 
in the original document the assumption of the name Gnostics by 
heretics was described as a new thing. 

2 H. E. iv. 22. 4 f. See Appendix III 1. To the extract containing 
these words Eusebius prefixes the remark, O 8 avros *ci T>V K.OT avrbv 
alp(re(av ras dp^as 


Carpocratians with a repetition in different words of 
what he had already said about Marcellina. Thus he 
returns to the document of which he had made use at the 
beginning of the paragraph. 

The list of Eoman bishops, part of which Epiphanius 
writes down twice, is taken from a document, and was 
not compiled by Epiphanius himself. This fact is betrayed, 
once more, by the carelessness of Epiphanius. The list, 
on repetition, ends with the name of Anicetus, on which 
follows, who has been already mentioned above in the 
catalogue (6 dVo> kv TU> /caraXoyo) 7rpoSSr)\a)fjLei os). Now 
there is in the Panarion no catalogue of bishops which 
can be referred to here. The obvious inference is that 
Epiphanius took his list from a writing in which its 
position was considerably earlier than the note, and that 
he has transcribed the latter, not observing that the 
omission of the /caraXoyoy from its proper place rendered 
it unmeaning. 1 

Further, most readers of this passage will probably 

1 Zahn (p. 260 f.) suggests that, like the following 17 
MapKeAXiVu, the words glance back to the beginning of the paragraph. 
His attempt, however, to show that there Anicetus is named in a 
catalogue is not very successful. But his reasoning is open to further 
criticism. He argues, if I understand him, that because the remark 
quoted above is made of Anicetus alone, and not of the other bishops 
just named, the reference must be to an incomplete catalogue in 
which all the other names were not given. But, if this be so, would 
not the remark be somewhat pointless if any of the other names were 
included in the earlier list ? On his own showing five out of the 
ten are there. And what could be the purpose of saying that one 
name in a complete list had been mentioned in an imperfect list now 
superseded ? Once more, it is somewhat surprising to find that im 
perfect list called the catalogue, as if there were no other, immediately 
after a full series episcoporum had been written down. For that is 
what Epiphanius calls it, if he really refers to it here, and not the 
above catalogue (den obigen Kataloy] as Zahn translates his words. 


agree with Harnack when he says 1 that the list of bishops 
and the episode of Marcellina are inseparably connected. 
They must have been taken from the same document. 
Hence, if the foregoing argument is sound the former as 
well as the latter comes from the Memoirs of Hegesippus. 
Thus we may account for the presence of such irrelevant 
matter as a list of the bishops of Borne in a passage whose 
subject is the heresy of Carpocrates. The account of the 
Carpocratians, including the sentences about Marcellina, 
was in the Memoirs inserted in the KardXoyos after the 
mention of Anicetus, in whose episcopate the heresy came 
into prominence at Rome through the influence of that 
lady. And Epiphanius when making use of it could not 
refrain from adding some information from its context 
which was little to his purpose. And so we discover that 
the /caraXoyo? was not the mere list of names which the 
word might seem to import, 2 The name of each bishop 
was associated with some account of his period of office. 
This inference is supported by the fact that Epiphanius 
tells us, no doubt relying on his AcaraXoyoy, that Linus 
and Cletus each ruled the Church for twelve years. It is 
supported also by the digression about Clement. This 
is really a digression within a digression. Epiphanius 
breaks off his discourse about the Carpocratians to give 
the list of bishops, and he breaks off the list when he 
reaches Clement to explain the difficulty about his place 
in the succession. It is natural to suppose that something 
in the catalogue itself suggested this fresh interruption. 
This can have been nothing else than an assertion that he 

1 p. 184, following Lightfoot. 

2 A different explanation, however, may be suggested. If each 
historical note was headed by the name of a bishop as a sort of title or 
rubric, the word KardXoyos might be regarded as applying to the list 
of names as distinct from the notes. 


was a contemporary of the apostles and was appointed 
bishop by St. Peter. The repetition of the former state 
ment in successive clauses l leaves the impression that it 
was, as it were, the text of the discourse, and the use of 
a Hegesippean phrase 2 in the latter is significant. 

If all this is true the /caraXoyoy which Epiphanius had 
in his hands must have been a kind of history of the early 
Roman Church not at all unlike the history of the early 
Church of Jerusalem which Hegesippus incorporated in 
his Memoirs. Two special features of resemblance between 
the two may be pointed out. As in the Memoirs the 
manner of the appointment to the episcopate of James 
and Symeon is dwelt upon, so here the appointment of 
Clement by St. Peter while he and St. Paul were still 
alive is recorded. And as there the introduction of 
heresy into Jerusalem by Thebuthis under Symeon is 
recounted, so here the introduction of Gnosticism into 
Eome by Marcellina under Anicetus is duly noted, and 
apparently dealt with at some length. 

The conclusion to which we seem to be irresistibly led 
by all these circumstances is that the whole of this para 
graph of the Panarion of Epiphanius, excepting only the 
argument about Clement,, is directly based on a passage of 
Hegesippus s Memoirs. This conclusion is supported by 
the high authority of Lightfoot, who, indeed, was the 
first to suggest it. But distinguished scholars do not 
accept Lightfoot s results in their entirety. Zahn 3 admits 

&v Ilerpov Kal UavXov . . . OVTOS TOVTOV avyxpovov Utrpov 
Kal TlavXov. <al OVTOS yap avyxpovos yivfrni TWV aTroo-roAcoz/. 

2 "Eri ircpiovruv airruv. Cp. H. E. iii. 20. 1 (Appendix IV f) <TI S* Trepiir 
o-av olairo yevovs TOV Kvpiov: H. E. iii. 11 (Appendix III h) wXeiW yap 
Knt TOVTWV Trepirjo-av fls eri rore r<u /3t a\ 

The same phrase may lie behind TOVS tls m rw /3ua XTTO/I/OW a few 
lines higher up in //. E. iii. 11 and frt r<3 /3t o> evSiarpiftovrt in H. E. iii. 
18, 1 (Appendix IV d). 3 pp 2 58 ff. 


the passage about Marcellina to a place in the Memoirs, 
but rejects the hypothesis that that work contained a list 
of the Roman bishops. Harnack, 1 holding that the two 
are inseparable, thinks it impossible that either can have 
been in the Memoirs, though he admits the remote possi 
bility that they may have appeared in some other treatise 
of Hegesippus. This possibility is, in truth, very remote, 
since there is not a particle of evidence that Hegesippus 
composed any work but the Memoirs. What then are 
the arguments which are urged to prove that Lightfoot s 
hypothesis is untenable ? 

It is said, in the first place, that Eusebius, one of the 
purposes of whose History was to record episcopal suc 
cessions, 2 if he had known such a list drawn up by 
Hegesippus, would have been certain to quote, or at least 
to mention it. Does he not transcribe the later and very 
meagre list compiled by Irenaeus ? 3 Now the argument 
e silentio, though it cannot be altogether avoided, is always 
treacherous. And it is not at its best when it is applied 
to an unsystematic writer like Eusebius. It would be no 
matter of surprise if for some reason not apparent he pre 
ferred the list of Irenaeus to one whose claim to precedence 
was a somewhat higher antiquity. But if we might 
hazard a guess, we should say that it was precisely the 
meagreness of Irenaeus s list that secured for it the honour 
of direct quotation almost in full. The catalogue, or his 
tory of the Roman bishops, fragments of which are 
incorporated in the Panarion, may well have been so long 
as to preclude such treatment. And it is quite possible 
that Eusebius did not consider its compiler a first-rate 
authority on Roman affairs, though he set much store by 
what he related about the history of the Christian com- 

1 Chronologic, i. 180ff. 2 H. E. i. 1. 1. 

3 H. E. v. 6. 

1353 Q. 


munity at Jerusalem. That he wholly abstained from 
using his KaraAoyo? is, however, by no means certain. 
Where else did he get the information that Linus and 
Cletus each held office for a period of twelve years ? l 

Harnack 2 makes an ingenious attempt to turn one of 
Lightfoot s arguments against himself which must not be 
passed over. He accepts the theory that when Epiphanius 
says he found his quotation from Clement s Epistle in 
certain v7rofj.vri/j.aTi(rfjLOL he means that he took it from the 
Memoirs of Hegesippus. But he thinks that by referring 
to the Memoirs for this one extract he implies that the 
facts recorded in the context were not taken from that 
work. This argument will scarcely carry conviction. If 
Epiphanius had given his references after the manner of 
a modern critic it might have been valid, but that is far 
from being the case. 3 It is no doubt curious that one 
who habitually gives no authority for statements taken 
from Hegesippus does so just here. But a reason may be 
suggested. Epiphanius was here not stating a mere fact 
of history: he was quoting in support of a disputable 
theory of his own a passage from a writing of which 
elsewhere he betrays no knowledge, and of which he 
probably expected his readers to be ignorant. He may 
have thought it well to assure them that he had sufficient 
ground for ascribing the saying to Clement. Moreover, 
it will be observed that to copy this saying he was 
obliged to turn to a different part of the Memoirs from 

1 H. E. iii. 13, 15. It will be remembered that Hegesippus is used 
as an authority in chapters 11, 12, 16-20. 

2 p. 185. 

3 See e. g. Haer. 29. 4 (Appendix III c, d), and especially Haer. 78, 
7 (Appendix IIIj), where it might have been argued, on Harnack s 
principle, that the only information guaranteed by Jewish tradition 
was exactly that which in fact came from a wholly different source. 
See above, p. 35. 


that which, ex hypothesi, he used in the preceding and 
following context. For the Epistle of Clement was 
noticed by Hegesippus in the section about Corinth, to 
which neither the story of Marcellina nor the appointment 
of Clement as bishop could have belonged. This in itself 
might have provided a motive for giving the reference. 

Finally Zahn l tells us that Epiphanius s list of bishops 
cannot have been derived from the Memoirs because it 
gives to the successor of Linus the name of Cletus, while 
Eusebius and Irenaeus, who had read the Memoirs, always 
call him Anencletus. But why was Irenaeus bound to 
follow Hegesippus in this matter rather than the authority 
in which he found Anencletus ? And Eusebius had read 
Irenaeus as well as Hegesippus. If he found Anencletus 
in one and Cletus in the other, was it to be expected that 
he would use both forms, or else of necessity prefer 
Hegesippus to Irenaeus ? 

I am not moved by such arguments to reject the view 
that the authority for all the historical facts mentioned in 
this paragraph is Hegesippus, and that all of them were 
drawn from his Memoirs. And if this theory be accepted 
there can be little question about the order in which the 
several statements followed one another in the passage 
from which Epiphanius took them. From this point of 
view, however, one clause merits further discussion. We 
have seen reason to regard the phrase 6 diva* kv rS> Kara- 
Aoyo) 7rpoS87j\a>/jii>o$ as a direct quotation. But if so it 
has wandered from its moorings. "Where did it originally 
stand ? It may be assumed that it followed a mention of 
Anicetus subsequent to the first occasion on which he was 
named. Now if we suppose that it occurred in the Marcel 
lina section 2 in the genitive case this condition is fulfilled. 
Hegesippus may have written kv ^povoi^ AvtKrjrov kiri- 
1 p. 260. 2 Appendix V h, j. 


(TKOTTOV *Pa)$ rov avoo kv TO) KaraXoycf) 
Since the notice of Marcellina occurs in the middle of the 
account of Carpocrates it may have been so long subse 
quent to the introductory mention of Anicetus as to make 
this cross-reference desirable. That Epiphanius should 
have divorced it from its context and written it a few 
lines higher up is not surprising. He performed a similar 
feat elsewhere. 1 And in the place to which we have 
assigned it we find in Epiphanius what may be counted 
a paraphrase of it : who succeeded Pius Kal rS>v dvcorepa). 
The latter words have been rendered and his predeces 
sors . But they may mean and those mentioned above . 
In that case we have an explicit reference to the Kara- 
Aoyoy as preceding the story of Marcellina. 

It remains to inquire what was the position of the whole 
passage in the Memoirs. It is plain that it must have 
belonged to that part of the record of Hegesippus s travels 
which he devoted to the Church of Rome. It is equally 
clear that it cannot have preceded the sentence in which 
he records his arrival at the city. 2 And it is highly im 
probable that it followed the notice of the orthodoxy of all 
the cities about which Hegesippus had acquired informa 
tion in the course of his voyage. 3 Between those two 
passages, therefore, in spite of the fact that they are 
successive sentences in Eusebius, we must insert it. And 
we see at once that there it is in perfect harmony with its 
surroundings. It enables us in the first place partially to 
fill the gap left at this place in Eusebius s extract from 
Hegesippus s account of his voyage. 4 And thus it saves us 
from the necessity of thinking that Hegesippus treated of 
the Eoman Church in such scanty fashion as might have 
been inferred from Eusebius. Moreover, it gives some 

1 See above, p. 35. a Appendix V f. 

3 Appendix V k. 4 See above> p 66 f> 


sort of consistency to Hegesippus s method of argument. 
"We find that, just as in the case of Jerusalem and Corinth, 
so in that of Rome, what he wrote was mainly a resume 
of the history of the Christian community, special atten 
tion being paid to the circumstances under which each 
bishop succeeded to his charge and to the cause and time 
of the rise of heretical teaching. This we have already 
had occasion to observe. A further point may be noticed 
now. The balance of probability seems to be in favour of 
the supposition that the historical disquisition ended with 
the episcopate of Anicetus, 1 though there was material 
for carrying it on to that of Eleutherus. Why was this ? 
Because, we may answer, it was under Anicetus that 
heresiarchs began to congregate at Rome, to proclaim 
their doctrines openly, and to win large numbers of 
disciples. Such at least seems to have been the opinion 
of the compiler ; and it is supported by the statements of 
Irenaeus. It is true that from him we learn that the in 
flux of heretics to Rome began earlier. Valentinus and 
Cerdon arrived during the short episcopate of Hyginus. 2 
But if Valentinus attained the zenith of his influence under 
Pius, he was still in Rome in the earlier part of the rule 
of Anicetus. On the other hand, Cerdon does not appear 
to have been a formidable opponent of orthodoxy. When 
he was excommunicated we do not know, but before that 

1 That is all that can be said at the present stage of our argument, 
for it is certainly possible that, as Harnack suggests (p. 185), Epi- 
phanius interrupted his transcription of the list of bishops in order to 
introduce the notice of the Carpocratians and had no further occasion 
to refer to it. But on the other hand, if the KardXoyos was the list of 
names as distinct from the historical notes appended to them (see 
above, p. 79), the phrase 6 avco eV ro> KaroXoyo) TrpoSeSqXeo/zeVo? seems to 
indicate that it was already completed when the note about Marcellina 
was written. If so, it did not extend beyond Anicetus. 

2 Iren. Adv. Haer. i. 27. 1 ; iii. 4. 3. 


event he vacillated between avowal of orthodoxy and 
furtive teaching of heresy. 1 Of such secret propagation of 
error Hegesippus took no account. 2 Cerdon s successor 
Marcion attained a position of influence under Anicetus, 3 
and it was probably at that time that he had his famous 
interview with Poly carp. 4 The very fact that Poly carp 
in the time of Anicetus succeeded in recovering to the 
Church many followers of Valentinus and Marcion 5 is 
eloquent testimony to the success of their propaganda. 
And in the same episcopate Marcellina was no less success 
ful in spreading the doctrine of Carpocrates. 6 Heresy 
was in fact rampant at Rome under Anicetus as it had 
never been before. If with him Hegesippus brought his 
sketch of the history of the Roman Church to a close, 
the correspondence between his treatment of Jerusalem 
and Rome is complete. 

Up to the present I have refrained from referring to 
the statement of Hegesippus that on his arrival at Rome 
he made a SiaSoxtf- I have contented myself with giving 
reasons for the belief that the words SiaSoxyv k-rroi^d^v 
are genuine. What then do they mean? Mr. M c Giffert 
remarks that c if these words be accepted as authentic, 
the only possible rendering seems to be the one which has 
been adopted by many scholars, " Being in [rather, when I 
arrived at ] Rome I composed a catalogue of bishops " . 7 
But Harnack and Zahn agree that the words cannot possi 
bly have this meaning. No example, it is said, of the use 
of SiaSoxrj in the sense of a list of bishops can be produced. 
In H. E. v. 5. 9, to which Lightfoot appealed, 8 as in other 
passages, the SiaSox*) ^ s not a li st ^ is the matter of fact 
which in the /caraAoyoy is expressed in writing. 9 Never- 

1 Iren. iii. 4. 3. 2 H. E. iii. 32. 7. See Appendix Illk. 

Iren. iii. 4. 3. 4 Ibid. iii. 3. 4. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid. i. 25. 6. 
7 Note 3 on H. E. iv. 22. 8 Clement, i. 328. 9 Zahn, p. 245. 


theless the two words approach one another very closely in 
their meaning. If 8ia8o^fi was sometimes used as equiva 
lent to KardXoyos it would be no more surprising than the 
fact that Aoyoy means not only ratio but verbum. It is hard 
to see in what other sense Irenaeus uses the word SiaSoyji 
when he says that Hyginus occupied the ninth place in the 
episcopal succession from the apostles. 1 Zahn admits that 
in one passage the word is used of a written list of succes 
sive bishops ; 2 but he maintains that this passage is not to 
our purpose inasmuch as it is there in the plural. 3 But why 
it should be assumed that at SiaSoxai means a single list, 
and not several, I do not know. If the choice must be 
made between altering the text and giving to the word 
SiaSoyji a meaning which is unusual, though not without 
support, the latter is the alternative to be preferred. 

But we are told that, whatever may be the meaning of 
SiaSoxij elsewhere, here it cannot possibly indicate a list 
of successive bishops of Rome. Hegesippus, who in the 
preceding context had not spoken either of Roman 
bishops or of the succession of bishops in other churches, 
but of the Epistle of Clement, of his stay in Corinth, and 
of his arrival at Rome, must in that case have written 
something like TTJV rwv avroOi 7ncr/co7ra)j/ 8La8oyj)i> ^TTOITJ- 
a-dfji-qv! 4 The answer is simply that we do not know what 
Hegesippus spoke about in the preceding context, inas 
much as Eusebius has not quoted it fully. The only thing 
that is certain is that he mentioned many bishops. And 
with a similar answer we may meet Harnack s argument, 
that since in the case of Corinth Hegesippus recorded the 

1 Iren. i. 27. 1. 

2 H. E. v. 12. 2 fJL(6 ov eVKr/coTreCoYu Kaatriavov at TWV avTodi 

3 It will be remembered nevertheless that ras 8unpi^as eVoietro is 
cited as parallel to 5iari 

4 Zahn, p. 244. 


time of his visit and the orthodoxy of the Church, we 
might expect him to adopt a similar procedure in the case 
of Rome, and that therefore StaSox^ eironjo-dfjLrjv or the 
phrase which it displaced must express a date. 1 Such 
expectations, indeed, are liable to disappointment ; but who 
knows whether the date appeared in one of the passages 
which Eusebius has omitted? There, at any rate, must 
have been the commendation of the orthodoxy of Rome 
if it was anywhere, since it is not in the present text. 
Zahn 2 makes merry over the notion that Hegesippus had 
no more important business to attend to when he got to 
Rome than to draw up a list of the Roman bishops, that 
his whole journey by land and water had actually no other 
purpose than the construction of a catalogue of bishops . 
Certainly we find no hint of such a seeming absurdity in 
the words when I reached Rome I made a succession- 
list . But what if the StaSoxTJ was not a mere list of 
names, but such a document as lay before Epiphaiiius ? 
If the purpose of the voyage of Hegesippus was to investi 
gate the history of the churches of Corinth and other 
cities above all Rome and so to provide himself with 
material for his refutation of heresy, is there anything 
surprising in his announcement that he had no sooner 
reached Rome than he set about the work which had 
brought him there ? 

Now if Hegesippus wrote that on coming to Rome he at 
once engaged in historical research, this assertion has an 
important bearing on our inquiry. For in the first place 
it is improbable that the remark was wholly gratuitous. 
It is a very natural inference that his investigation had 
some connexion with the work in which the observation 
occurs. In other words, we might expect that the SiaSoxij 
which he made would in some form be incorporated in 
1 Chronologic, p. 181. 2 p> 244. 


the Memoirs, and, in all probability, it would follow this 
reference to it after no long interval. Thus we are con 
firmed in our belief that the history of the ear]y Church 
of Eome which Epiphanius used was from the pen of 
Hegesippus, and that we have restored it to its true place 
in the Memoirs. 

Again, on the same supposition, it is certain that the 
terminus of Hegesippus s investigation was the episcopate 
of Anicetus, a conclusion which on other grounds has 
already appeared probable. Thus we have additional 
reason for believing that the scope of his dissertation on 
the Eomaii Church was similar to that of his dissertation 
on the Church of Jerusalem. 

And finally, whatever may have been the ground on 
which Eusebius made the statement that Hegesippus went 
to Rome when Anicetus was bishop, 1 we are now able to 
justify it. If immediately after his arrival at that city he 
drew up an account of the succession as far as Anicetus, it 
is plain that he cannot have made his visit to it before 
Anicetus succeeded to the bishopric. And he cannot have 
arrived under any later bishop, for under Anicetus he had 
his interview there with Marcellina. Hence it follows 
that it was during the rule of Anicetus that he took up his 
residence at Eome. 

We have now to ask the same question about this 
whole section of the Memoirs which has been already 
asked about the portion of it which has been recovered 
from the Panarion of Epiphanius. What was its position 
in the treatise of Hegesippus ? In this case the question 
must be answered with some degree of hesitation. But 
we may observe, in the first place, that, if we are correct 
in supposing that its argument was similar to that of the 
long section beginning with the account of James the 
1 H. E. iv. 11. 7. 


Just, that fact gives us some ground for holding that it 
belonged to the same part of Hegesippus s work, or in 
other words that it was part of the fifth Memoir. And we 
may go further. The natural course of his argument 
would be to begin with that which he knew best, the 
history of the church of which he himself was a member, 
and to pass on from it to that with which he was less 
familiar, the knowledge of other churches which he 
acquired during his travels. It may be reasonably con 
cluded that the notice of western churches, of which our 
third group is a part, had its place in the fifth Memoir 
after the notice of Jerusalem in the first and second 


Three isolated passages remain to be considered. The 
first is one in which a doctrine obviously based on 1 Cor. 
ii. 9 is denied on the ground that Christ taught the con 
trary in St. Matt. xiii. 16. 1 The persons whom Hegesip- 
pus was refuting were probably Gnostics of some kind 
who founded part of their teaching on St. Paul s words. 2 
If we may trust Photius, to whom we are indebted for our 
knowledge of the passage, it was in the fifth Memoir, but 
it seems impossible to fix its position more accurately. 

Another fragment consists of the end of one sentence, 
and the opening words of a second, in which Antinous is 
mentioned. 3 It seems to be taken from a polemic against 
paganism. It is therefore probably alien to the subject 
of the fifth Memoir, and in consequence I regard it as 
belonging to one of the first four. 

1 Photius, Bill., 232. See Appendix VI. 

2 Cp. Hippol. Philos. v. 24, 27. And see Milligan in Diet, of Christ. 
Biog. ii. 877 ; Burkitt, Early Christianity outside the Roman Empire, 
1899, p. 80 f. 

3 H. E. iv. 8. 2. See Appendix I. 


The third fragment relates to the seven sects of the 
Jews. About them Hegesippus tells us in his account of 
James the Just he had already written in his Memoirs. 1 
The passage to which he refers therefore certainly 
preceded the first of our extracts from the fifth Memoir, 
and probably belonged to one of the first four. 2 A portion 
of it is no doubt preserved in the list of the sects quoted 
by Eusebius, by way of comment on a reference to them 
in connexion with Thebuthis. 3 It is impossible to deter 
mine whether the position of this fragment in the 
Memoirs was before or after that concerning Antinous. 


It will not be supposed that the passages to which 
attention has been given in this Essay, and which are 
collected in the Appendix, are regarded by the present 
writer as the only ones in which Eusebius has made use 
of the Memoirs of Hegesippus. In some of them we have 
no direct statement of the historian as to the authority 
on which he relied, and it would not be surprising if 
proof were found hereafter that in other parts of his 
History he in like manner quoted or paraphrased the 
same work without express acknowledgement of his in 
debtedness to it. 

One passage may be mentioned here which is reason 
ably suspected to have been in part based on the Memoirs, 
though the evidence is not strong enough to warrant its 

1 H. E. ii. 23. 8. See Appendix III e rives ovv T>V eVra aipco-ctovribv fv 
T<p XaoS, T&V irpoyeypap.p.ftxiiv /zot [ei> rots vnop.vf]fjLaatv] KT\. The bracketed 
words are regarded by Schwartz as an addition of Eusebius, and 
Rufinus omits them. The question whether they are from the pen of 
Hegesippus is for our purpose immaterial. 

2 So Zahn, p. 232. 

3 H. E. iv. 22. 7. See Appendix II. 


inclusion in the Appendix. I refer to the chapter in 
which he gives a list of the early bishops of Jerusalem. 1 
It is true that there is no probability that the list itself 
comes from Hegesippus. Eusebius in fact tells us that he 
found it in the succession-lists preserved on the spot. 2 
And Mr. C. H. Turner, after a careful examination of the 
evidence, has come to the conclusion that if it was not 
manufactured for his benefit, it was at least not long in 
existence when he wrote his History? But it is not 
unlikely that Hegesippus mentioned some bishops of 
Jerusalem later than Symeon, just as he mentioned two 
bishops of Eome later than Anicetus, and if he did the 
names given by him would certainly be included in the 
apocryphal list. That list, as it came into Eusebius s 
hands, had no chronological notes. But after telling us 
this he adds, To be sure a record informs us that they 
were very short-lived. 4 Now, as regards the thirteen 
bishops who followed Symeon, this might have been 
inferred from the list itself. Symeon was put to death, 
according to Hegesippus, in the reign of Trajan ; Jeru 
salem was taken by Hadrian in A.D. 135. That is to say, 
thirteen bishops succeeded one another in thirty-five 
years. If from this we may not conclude that they died 
young, it is at any rate a permissible surmise that none 
of them ruled the Church for a long period. But the 
form of Eusebius s expression does not favour the sup 
position that his statement was a mere corollary from 
the number of names in his list. The remark would 
appear to have been explicitly made in the record to 

1 //. E. iv. 5. 

H. E. v. 12. 2. This applies only to the list of bishops succeeding 
Hadrian. But cp. Dem. Ei\ iii. 5 (p. 124 C) ; Theoph. v. 45. 
3 Journal of Theological Studies, i. (1900) 552. 
U. E. iv. 5. 1 K0fj.i8rj yap ovv ftpaxvftiovs avrovs \6yos 


which he appeals. And it is not likely to have been 
made in a bare list of names. It is also to be observed 
that, though this remark is by Eusebius made to apply 
to the whole series of bishops, it does not hold good of 
the first two. For both James and Symeon were aged 
men when they suffered martyrdom, and, according to 
Hegesippus, the episcopate of each of them lasted some 
thirty years or more. 1 This encourages us to think that 
Eusebius, borrowing it from a document in which it 
referred to the thirteen successors of Symeon, carelessly 
extended its scope. And it is at least a coincidence that 
in introducing it he makes use of the very phrase which 
in many other places served to indicate the Memoirs of 
Hegesippus. 2 A little lower down, too, he makes another 
observation, which, as Zahn notes, 3 has a Hegesippean 
ring. Just as Hegesippus did in the case of the western 
sees with which he became acquainted on his voyage, so 
here Eusebius commends the orthodoxy of the bishops of 
Jerusalem, and that in words which recall his paraphrase 
of Hegesippus s account of the election of Symeon: 

They say that being all Hebrews by descent they 
accepted the knowledge of Christ in sincerity, so that in 
fact by those who were able to judge of such matters they 
were also approved as worthy of the office of bishops. 4 

1 Compare Turner in Journal of Theological Studies, i. (1900) 535. 

2 See above, pp. 23, 50 f. I cannot think that Mr. Turner (1. c. 537) is 
right when he says that \6yos /mrc^t here means no more than the 
local tradition of the Church at Jerusalem as it existed in Eusebius s 

day . 

3 p. 287. 

* 2 ovs TTavTas EftfHiiovs <p<i(r\i> ovras dveKadfV TTJV yvaxriv TOV XpioroG 
yitrjvlais Karabf^aadai, OJOT fjdrj npbs TWV TO. roiafie eniKpivfiv dvvarcov Kal 
TrjS TWV eTrio-KOTrwv Xeiroup-yiay diovs doKifj,no-6ijvat. 

Compare H, E. iii. 11 (Appendix Illh, i) /SouA^i/ re 6/zoG TOVS iravras 
nfpl TOV TLVU xp l Ttjs IaKco/3ou fitufio^^s tmicpivai atoj/ Troir/crao &u, Kal . . . 
TOVS TTMTcts "S,vfj.f(ava . . TOV TTJS avTodi TrapoiKias dpdvov a^tov emu 


On the whole there is some ground for thinking that 
parts of this chapter come from Hegesippus, though we 
cannot attempt to determine how much may be referred 
to him, and how much to other sources. 

It is hardly necessary to point out that whatever 
fragments of Hegesippus may lie buried in this chapter, 
they must all have come from that part of the Memoirs 
which intervened between our second and third groups 
of passages. 


Before bringing this Essay to a close it may be well to 
direct attention to some of the results to which our 
investigation has led us. 

In the first place, the thesis which I undertook to 
maintain has, I believe, been fully established. We have 
rescued from the pages of Eusebius and Epiphanius a 
large number of fragments of the Memoirs, which fall 
into three groups, and are the remnants of two long 
passages. "We have shown that the first of these passages l 
belonged to the fifth Memoir, and that the second 2 pro 
bably followed it in the same division of Hegesippus s 
treatise. They embrace all the known fragments from 
his pen dealing with the history of the Church. This 
goes far to prove that there were few, if any, references 
to Christian history in the earlier Memoirs, and to refute 
the charge often made that Hegesippus arranged his 
material at haphazard. 

But in one or two other matters our researches have 
incidentally increased our knowledge. Some of the 
fragments included in the Appendix to this Essay are not 

Sotcipio-ai. It is no doubt true that if in our passage Eusebius is 
quoting Hegesippus he uses fya-Ti in a sense which is unusual with him, 
though not altogether without example. See above, p. 36. 
1 Appendix III, IV. 2 Appendix V. 


expressly cited by Eusebius or Epiphanius as from 
Hegesippus, and a few of them have not been generally 
recognized as his by modern scholars. The most important 
of these are perhaps the two which relate to the banish 
ment of St. John. 1 Now evidence from the second century 
in regard to the date and authorship of the canonical 
Apocalypse is both scanty and, in some respects, difficult 
to interpret. But if the two passages referred to are 

J- r o 

really from Hegesippus we have his testimony that St. 
John the Apostle was banished to Patmos under Domitian, 
and resided at Ephesus under Nerva. That is to say, he 
must be added to the small band of early witnesses to the 
late date and apostolic authorship of the Apocalypse. 
And this is full of significance. It is not only that 
Hegesippus is the earliest writer who can be quoted in 
favour of that view. That, indeed, we may well claim for 
him. Clement of Alexandria, who speaks of the exile in 
Patmos, died no earlier than between 212 and 217 ; 2 
Irenaeus, who affirms that John the disciple of the Lord 3 
resided in his later years at Ephesus, first comes into 
prominence in 177 when he became bishop of Lyons, 4 and 
was little more than a boy in 155. 5 But Hegesippus 
would seem to have already held a prominent position in 
the Church about 155, when he made his journey to Rome. 
He may have been only a few years younger than Papias 
of Hierapolis. 6 But the importance of the evidence 

1 Appendix IV d, e. 

2 Harnack, Chronologic, h. 6. 

3 That by this phrase Irenaeus indicates the apostle is shown by 
J. H. Bernard in the Irish Church Quarterly, i. 52. 

4 H. E. v. 4 f. 

5 H. E. v. 20. 5 ; cp. Gwatkin, Early Church History, ii. 107 f. 

6 Harnack, op. cit. i. 357, dates the cgriyfotis of Papias c. 145-160. 
Others however put his floruit much earlier, e. g. Sanday, Criticism of 
Fourth Gospel, p. 250 f. 


supplied by Hegesippus seems to lie in another direction. 
A fragment attributed to Papias, which is extant in two 
manuscripts, contains the assertion that St. John the 
Apostle was put to death by Jews. 1 If this be true it 
disposes of the apostolic authorship of the Apocalypse. 2 
And the testimony of Papias has great weight. If the 
apostle was martyred by Jews, he cannot have spent the 
closing years of his life at Ephesus. And if he lived at 
Ephesus, the bishop of Hierapolis cannot have been 
ignorant of the fact. But, on the other hand, Hegesippus, 
if he was not, as Eusebius supposed, a convert from 
Judaism, 3 was yet obviously in close touch with Pales 
tinian Christianity. It is very difficult to believe that if 
St. John had suffered ma^rdom in Palestine he would 
not have been aware of it. And if he had heard the story 
and gave credence to it, he could not have said that the 
apostle was sent to Patmos by Domitian, and lived at 
Ephesus under Nerva. 

But of more importance for the student of Eusebius than 
fresh evidence on this disputed question is the light thrown 
by our investigation on the historian s method of quoting 
his authorities. Of the passages of his History with which 
we have been occupied five are of considerable length and 
claim to have been transcribed from the Memoirs of 
Hegesippus. 4 In no less than four of them it has been 
proved that the historian in copying omitted some parts 
of the text. It is true that in one case the omission is of 

1 On the question whether this statement was really made by 
Papias see Lightfoot, Essays on Supernatural Religion, p. 212 ; Har- 
nack, op. cit. i. 665 ; Bernard, u. s., pp. 55 ff. 

2 H. B. Swete, Apocalypse*, p. clxxx. 

3 H. E. iv. 22. 8. 

4 H. E. ii. 23. 4-18, Appendix III c-e ; H. E. iv. 22. 4-6, Appendix 
III g, h, i, 1 ; H. E. iii. 20. 1 f., Appendix IV f, h ; H. E. iii. 32. 6, 
Appendix IV k, 1 ; H. E. iv. 22. 2, 3, Appendix V c-f, k. 


inconsiderable extent ; l but in others the omitted portions 
were apparently nearly as long as those which have been 
preserved, 2 or even much longer ; 3 and in none can we 
count them as of no importance. These are phenomena 
which cannot be confined to passages in which the direct 
quotation can be checked by comparison with a paraphrase 
in another part of the History, or in another writer such 
as Epiphanius ; nor can they be limited to excerpts from 
a single source. It is clear that the direct quotations of 
Eusebius ought to be subjected to a closer scrutiny than 
they have yet received, with the special purpose of 
detecting signs of omission. 

1 Appendix IV f-h. 2 Appendix III g-1. 

3 Appendix V c-k. 




Passages quoted by our authorities in the ipsissima verba of the texts of 
Hegesippus which lay before them are printed in larger type. Para 
phrases of Hegesippus s language are in smaller type. Words which 
it has been found convenient to include, though they are not based on 
phrases of Hegesippus, are enclosed in square brackets. Words in 
columns other than the first, enclosed in angular brackets, are such 
as are probably derived from the genuine text of the Memoirs, notwith 
standing the fact that they do not occur in the fir&t column. Occasionally 
words are conjecturally inserted in the first column enclosed in angular 


//. E, iv. 8. 2 . . ots K6voTd<f>ia /cat vaovs eTrooyo-av 0)9 
5)V ecrrtv /cat Ai/TtVoos, SovAos ASptavoC KaiVapos, ov /cat dyu>v 
ayerat AvTU detos, 6 c< ^tiaV yevd/xevos. /cat yap TroAtv /cTi<rev 
7ruW/>iov AvTivdov /cat 7rpo<f>iJTas . . . 


H. E. iv. 22. *Ho-av Se yvco/zai Sia<opot ev rff Trepiro/xr) ev 
lo-parjXiT&v /cara r^s <j)vX.f)<; louSa Kat TOV Xptaroi! avrat" Eo-cratot, 
FaXiXatoi, H/xcpo/JaTTTto-rat , Macr/3w$eoi, Sa/x-apetrat, 


8. 7 (p. 1039 B). 

Epiph. Haer. 78. 7 (p. 1039 B). a. "Eax* 5e euros 6 IWT^ rf)v ^tv 
alrov ywaiKa fK rrjs (f>v\rjs Iov8a, /cat KVtaitti aura) avrr) naiSas ruv api6p.ov e, 
rtaaapas n\v appevas 0r)\(ias 8e 5vo, tcaOdnep TO fvayy^iov TO KO.TCL Map/tov 
KO.I /caret laavvrjv fffoKprjvtaav. 

Epiph. Haer. 78. 8 (p. 1040 A), b. T/wrei P.\VTOVTOV TOV laKu&ov eyyvsirov 
TTfpl err) yefovws TCffaapaKOVTO. TT\fioj (\dffcra}. /ier avTov 8e yivcTai Trat? Icoafj 
Ka\ov^fvos. f?ra /r CLVTOV ~5.vp.ewv, CTretra louSaj, /cat Suo OvyaTtpes, rj Mapia 
Kal fj 2aAw^77 KaXovfJLfvij, /cat TeQvqKtv avrov fj yvvrj. /cat /uera er?; ?roA\a Xanfta- 
vti TTJV Mapiav XVP 05 , KaTayoiv ^At/ctai/ irepi irov dySorjitovTa. crcDi/ /cat irpoaca 6 dvrjp. 

ILE.ii.2B. c. 4 Aia- 


d8eA<os TOV Kvptov 
IaKa>/?os, 6 oVo/xao-$et9 
I TTO TrdvTwv SiKtao? aTro 


/Xe xpt /cat f)fJi)V, 7Tl 

TToXAot Ia/ca)/?ot e/ca- 
XOVI/TO, 5 ovTos 8e e/c 
/cotXtas /x>/Tpos avTOv 
aytos ^i/, otvov Kat 
o-t/cepa ov/c ITTICV, ovSe 

Epiph. Haer. 78. 
7 (p. 1039 B) 
c. Eer^e /UP oui/ 


e. TOV eniK\r}6fv- 

ra d;j3Ataj/, (pfirj- 


/cat SIKCLIOV kni- 

OVTd, OTTtp 

vev(Taidyios. /cat 
Trpwros euros ft- 
A^e T^ KaO(- 
5pav Trjt tTTt- 

(i 7T67rt- 

Epiph. 29. 4 

yap ^Trpcuroro- 
*os) TO) 

Epiph. Haer. 78. 
13 (p. 1045 B). 
C. O Ia/ca))3o? 6 
doe\(f>bs TOV KV- 
piov, 6s tjr uiv 
trwv TeXtvrd, 

irapOfvos ycyorur 

<f> OV Kf(f>a\7)S 

aiSrjpos OVK dvrj\- 

0(V, OS OVK (K- 



X " 


f/AV/vxov e<ayei/, vpov 

ffTfVKf KVplOS 


CTTi TTJV K<j>a\.r)v av~ 
rov OVK av/3r), eAaiov 

TOV Opovov 
avrov Irrt T?J? 

OVK ivtdvaaTo, us 

Tplftavito (KfXPTl- 

TO \ivcO) uovouTa- 

OVK yXeiij/aro, KOL /?a- 

os at eKaXfl- 

Epiph. Haer. 78. 14 

TV KaOdirep KT\ 

Aavei u) OVK cxprjo-aro 

TO 6 dSf\(pos 

(p. 1046 A), c. (See 

. . . 



lr)V eis Ta ayia {TCOV 

d. *Er( 5e a< 
( i e p a T fvaavra ) 


TO) IaK<jj/3a> (:r]v 

ay 100 j/} ciVieVar 

avTov ard T^ 
TraAaidj lepojov- 

ana dfrifvat TOV 
Urovs (is rd dyia 

vrjv rjvpofjifv. 810 

(rwv d-yiW), 8td 

Kal <pi(TO avTw 

TO vafapaiov av- 

dna^Tov fviavTOV 

TOV dvat Kal ^/u- 

fis TO. ayia (TO)J 
d^/cui/ ydcrtevai , ws 

fj.ixOai TTI Ifpwav- 

TC?? dpxifpfvffiv 

KaTa TO yrypajj.- 

ydp laroprjaav 

no\\ol trpb rj^wv 

Trfpi avrov, Ev- 

fffffios Tf Kal 

K\r)fMjs Kal d\- 

Aot.] dAAd ^*at 

d. Ouros o Idaj/3os 

T^ ircTaAor ITTI 

(tfat ireraXov krtl T^S 

T^S K<pa\rjs fjv 

6<paA^ ^ >a > 

0ws ol irpofiprjfjif- 

vot di6mo~roi av- 

5pe s (v rofs avTofs 

ovSe yap epeow e^>o- 


<rf TTOT^ dppo X ias 

pei, aAAa o~ivooVas. 

yfvoftfvrjs (irrjpt rds 

Kai /xoj/o? elo-rjpxero eis 

X tpas fls ovpavbv Kal 

TOV VaOl/ r)Vpl(TKTO T 

6 ovpavos (SajKfv v- 

Kijaei/o9 7Ti TOIS ydva- 

Tov.y (pfovv de iftd- 

o~iv Kai aiTov/xevo? v?rep 

TlOV OuSfTTOTe (VfSv- 

TOV Aaov a<f>o~Wi ws 

o~aTo. Ta 5f yovaTa 

j . 

avTov (TK\7)Kiao av 

a7reo"KA^Kvai Ta yo- 

vaTa avrov BLKTTJV Ka/x?y- 

ro^dvTOTf Kdunreiv 

Xov, Sia TO dei Ka/ATrreiv 

avTa ivwmov Kvpicv 

<7Tl yoi/V TTpOCTKVl/OVVTa 

e. 5V virp/3o\r]v (cv- 

TOO $eo) Kai aiTeior^ai 

C. TOUTOVOVV ovouan 

a.<peo-w TO> Aa(j>. . . . 

OVKfTl Ka\OVV } d\\ 

o SiKatos r\v avTa> 

bvofj.a, OVTOS ovSf- 

TTOTC ev f3a\avtia} 

k\ovaaro~ euros 4/Lt- 

ipvxov ov /j.(Tf<rx f 

[KaOus avw /zot irpoSe- 

8r)\carai] (QVTOS ffav- 

Sd\iov oi>x virfSrj- 

H 2 


6. 7 Aid yeroi rrjv vTrep/SoAr/v r^s SiKatoo-vv^s avrov eKaAeiro 6 OIK 
Kai a>/3Ai as, o eo-nv eAA^vio-ri Trepto^r/ rov Aaov, Kat StKaioo-vVty, ws ot 
Trpo(/>?yrai 8^Aovo-iv Trept avrov. a 8 rives ovv rwv eTrra aipeVewv rtov 
ev ru> AauJ, rtov Trpoyeypa/x/xevwv /xot ev rots VTro/xv^/xao-iv, ttrvvOdvovro 
avrov rts 17 $vpa rov I^o-ov, Kat eAeyev rovrov etvat rov o-wrfjpa 9 e 
a>v rives errio-revo-av ort !T;O-OVS eo-rtv 6 Xpio-ros. at 8e atpeVets ai 
Trpoeipr/yae vai OVK eTrio-revov ovre dvdo-rao-iv ovre ep^o/xevov aTroSovvai 
eKao-rw Kara ra cpya avrov* 00*01 8e Kat eTriVrevo-av, 8ia IaKw/3ov. 
10 TToAAa)!/ ovv Kai roov dp^ovrwv Trio-revovrwv, y]v @6pvj3o<; rcuv lovSatwv 
Kai ypa/z/xare tuv Kai ^apio-at wv Aeyovrwv ort KtvSvvevei Tras 6 Aaos 
<av. eAeyov ovi 
rov Aaov, eVei 

avrov ovros rov Xpio-rov. TrapaKaAov/xev o~e Treto-at Travras rovs e/ 
ras is r?)v rj/JLtpav rov Trdo-^a Trept Iiyo-ov" 0*01 yap Travres 
T^/xeis yap /taprvpov/xev o"oi Kai Tras 6 Aaos on SiVaios ct Kai ort 
Trpoo~a)Trov ov Aaju,/3dveis. 1! Treio-ov ovv o~v rov o^Aov Trepi I7yo~ov /x^ 
TrXavacrOaL Kat yap Tray 6 Aaos Kat Travres Trei$o/>i$d o-ot. o-rrfOi ovv 
eTri ro Trrepvyiov rov lepov, iva dvco^ev ^s eTri<^av^s Kai 17 evaKovo-rd o~ov 
ra prj/jiara Travri ra> Aaw. 8ia yap ro Trao-^a o-vveXr)Xv@acn Trao-ai ai 
<vAat p,era Kat rtov e^vwv- 12 ecrr^crav ovv ot Trpoetp^/xevoi ypa/x/xa- 
rets Kai $apto-atoi rov laKwySov CTTI ro Trrepvyiov rov vaov, Kai eKpa^av 
avrw Kat etTrav, AtKate, w Travres TretOccrOat o0eiAo/xev. eTrei 6 Aaos TrAavarai 
OTTwrw IT/O-OV rov o-ravpw^evros, aTrdyyeiAov i^/xiv ris 17 ^vpa rov Ivyo-ov. 
13 Kat aTreKptvaro <t>a>vrj jmrydXr), Ti p,e eTrepcordre Trepi rov viov rov 
dvOpwTTov, Kai avros KaOrjrai ev ra> ovpavw eK 8e^iwv r^s /xeydAr/s 
Svvd/xews, Kat /xeAAet ep^eo-^ai CTTI raiv ve<eAwv rov ovpavov ; 14 Kai 
TToAAwv TrXrjpoifioprjOevrwv Kai 8o^a^ovrcov erri rr} /xaprvpia rov IaKw/?ov 
Kai Aeyovrwv Oo-avvd ra> viw AaviS, rore TrdAiv ot avrot ypa/x/xareis Kai 
4>apto-atoi Trpos dAA^Aovs eAeyov, KaKois eTroi^o-a/xev rotavr^v /xaprvpiav 
Trapao-^ovres ra> Iryo-ov dAAa dva^dvres Kara/3dAco/xev avrov, iva 
<}>o/3r]8VT<s /my TTio-revo-wo-iv avrai. 15 Kai eKpa^av Ae yovres, *O oo, Kai 
6 8iKaios fTrXavrjOrj, Kai cTrXrjpwcrav rrjv ypa</>^v r^v ev ra> Ho-aia ye- 
ypap,p,ev^v, Apa>p:ev rov 8tKatov, on ovo"^p7]o~ro<5 rjjjuv eo-nv- rotvvv ra 
yevT^/xara rwv epywv avroiv </>dyovrai. 16 dvaySdvres ovv KareySaAov rov 
8tKatov. Kat eAeyov dAA^Aots, . 

Epiph. flaer. 78. 14 (p. 1046 
D). e. TeAeura 5e oSro? u Ia- 
cuj3o? o dSeA^oj TOU tcvpiov KCU 
tuos I<uffri<p kv 
fiiwffas fjiera TTJV TOV 
avaXrjtyiv I? 

Tr\flo} lAacrcrcy, a/i/ ITOII/ ^r , I/TTO 
TOU yvacbfcas ra> fv^aj iraiaOtls TTIV 

rw tepewv rcov vitov r^a/* vioy Kf $a^v, p^hLorot Trrepvyiov 
rcov /xaprvpov/xeVwv VTTO 

avrov, eTret KaraflXrjOtls OVK a 
dAAa o-rpa^>ei9 WrjKf. ra yovara Aeywv, 
IlapaKaAco, Kvpte ee Ilarep, d^>es av- 
rols* ov yap otSao~tv rt 7rotovo"tv 17 ov- 
ro)s oe KaraAt^oySoAovvrcov avrov, ets 

OV Itpov, KCU KareXBwv na.1 

* The text of this fragment seems to be corrupt. For an attempt to 
reconstruct it see above, p. 7. 


Icpc/uov TOV Trpocfi^rov, Kpa^v Aeyoov, 
Havo-ao-@r rt Troieire ; ev^erat 

6 oY/catos. 
, eis TOJV 


ei/ a> a.7ro7rieet ra t^tarta, r^vey/cev Kara 
TTJS KC(f>a\fj<s TOV Si/caiov, /cat ovrws 
/JiapTvpr)(rev. /cat ZOauf/av O.VTOV CTTL 
TO) roTTU) Trapa rw vaw, /cat ert avroG 17 
o-Tr)X.r) /xevet 7ra/oa rw vaa>. 
oiSro? dXrjOrjS lovoaiois re Kat 
crti/ yeyeV^rat on *I?;o-o{;9 6 
eo~Ttv. /cat vOv<s 
o/o/cet ai/rovs. 

H. . iii. 5. f. 2 MTa 7^ /x^ 


\r)if/iv lovdaiajv irpos TO) OT 
aurou To\fj.rj^.aTi ijSt] /tal Kara 
TUV arroffToXav avrov itXei- 
ffras offas 

\i6ois vir avrwv a.vr)pr]fj.(voVj 
dra 5e avrov laKu&ov, 
os rfv Z(f3e8aiov /Jitv nais, 

<pa\r]V diTOTfj.TjOti Tos, firl irdffi 
r( laKwfiov, rov rov avToOi 
rr/s fTTtaKoiTTJs Opovov irpcurov 
rov acur^poj rjpwv 
Vov, rov 
rpoirov fj.fra\- 
\davroS) rwv r( \oirrwv dno- 
OTO\OJV fjivpia tis Odvarov Irrt- 
rr)s fj.v 

(ir rrj rov 

SaoKa\iq rrjv eh avuiravra ra 

(Ovr) arfi\a^.V(av iroptiav avv 

SwdfAtl TOV XpldTOV (pTjffaVTOS 

avTois, IlopevdtVTfS paOrj- 
Tfvffare -rravra rd (Ovrj tv rw 
ovonari (j.ov, 3 ov P.TJV d\\d real 
ToG \aov T^J (v lfpoao\vfiots 
tKK\r)o- tas Kara nva \prfOp.ov 
rois avTo9i SoKipois Si diro- 
Ka\vif/tcas enooOfvra irpb rov 
TroAcfiov ueravaorrivai TTJS TTO- 
\eois Kai nva rf/s TIfpaias 
noKiv oiKftv KfKf\fva/j.tvov, 
Ile XAai/ avrfjv bvop-d^ovoiv, tv 
3* riav els Xptarov iremarev- 

Epiph. ILaer. 29. 
7 (p. 123 B). f. 
76701/6 //era r^v 
d-no rwv lepoao- 
\vucav p-erdaraaiv, 
(^Tjavrcav^ rwv diro- 
ar6\(av^ rSiv ev 
Yle\\r) UKTJKOTWI , 
Xpiarov (pr/aavTos 

dSmrjOeis, K\ivas Se ra yovara Kal 
irpoaiv^dfjLevos vrrep rwv avrov 
piipdvrojv, teal <pdo~K(uv ~S,v-y\w- 
pijoov avrots ov yap oiSacrt ri 


earws, 6 rovrov dveif/ios, vios be 
rov KXama, e\tye, TlavoaoOe, ri 
XiOdfare rov SiKaiov ; Kal I8ov, 
ev^frai VTrep vfj.wv rd KaXXiora. 
Kal OVTCUS ytyove TU UVTOV p.ap- 


Epiph. Haer. 30. 
2 (p. 126 C). f. 
rtyove fie r) dp\f) 
rovrov (furd rrjv 
TUJV lfpooo\v^cav 
&\(U<Jivy. tTitiOTjydp 

TTJV Tlepaiav tear 
eiteivo Kaipov KCITCIJ- 

Epiph. De Mens. 15. (P. de 
Lagarde, Symmicta, ii. 167) 
f . * [ O Toivvv A/cvAas oidyuv 
ev TT) lepovaaXrip Kal opuiv 
TOVS f4a$T)TcLs TWV uaOr/rlav 
rwv dnoaroAeuvKTA.] 2 qaav 
yap vTTooTptyavTes diro He\~ 
AT;? rr/s iroXeca? els lepovaa- 
\rjfj. Kal ev avrr) Siatrwf^evoi 
Kal oiodo~Kovres. 3 fjv iKa yap 
(t/*eAAei/} 17 TroAts aXiffKf- 
aOai viro rwv Pwfjiaiojv Kal 

aBrjaav vno dyye\ov (iravres 

& The words ev r; are bracketed by Schwartz. 

b The reading p.aOr]rwv is perhaps to be prei erred. See above, p. 28, note 4 , 


KOTOJV dirb TTJS le- 
povaa\rm fj.Ta>Kia- 

p:ev(av, es 


Toav dyiwv avopwv 
OVTTJV re TTJV lov- 

avfAnaaav TT)V lov- 
Saiav yffv, i) eK 
Qeov 8iKTj \onrbv 
avTovs arc roaaOra 
eis Te TOV "KpiaTov 
Kal TOVS aTrocrToAofS 
avTov jrapr]vofj.T]K6- 
ra> {AeTTjfi, TWV 
dafffuv dpoTjv TT)V 
yevedv avTTjV (Kei- 

poa6\Vfji.a Kal dva- 

TTO\iopKiav. KOI eK 


Otfffus TT)V Uepaiav 

KTjaav TO 

vl TroAet 
Ka\ovfJ.evr) (^TTjsAf- 

TTJS ev 
TW vayye\i(t> yf- 

TTJS Barai/atas Kal 
EaaaviTioos \wpas, 

TO TTjVlKaVTa eKtl 

\ s rt 

TOJV y avTOJVj yeyo- 
vev en TOVTOV irpo- 

TO> E/Stcuj/t. 


o~TTJvai drib TTJS TTO- 


nfpa.VTov Iop5di/ov. 


T(S (els e<f>T)v) arj- 

6 [6 ovv Atfv Aas 

H. E. iv. 22. g. 4 Kai fjLtra TO 
aprvprja-ai *IttKO)/?ov TOV 

? Kttl 6 KVplOS, 7Tl TW ttVTO) 
ll. TTttXlT. . 

i. 6 K Otiov avrov !u/xewi/ 6 


ov TrpotOfVTO -TraVres, ovra avc\j/iov 
TOV Kvpiov, 8evTepov. 

Epiph. Haer. 78. 7 (p. 1039 A). 
j. Kara oe rfjv &KO\ov6iav CK TTJS TWV 
lovSaiwv irapaooffeaj; [SeiKWTai us oi>x 
ZvfKfv TOV ^fv\0fjvai avTO> (sc. TO) 
r lojff^i<p} irapeoiooTo aura) 77 irapOtvos 
(sc. Mopta), rA. TTWS -yap ^Swaro o 
ToaoSros ytpcuv irapOevov etiv yvvaiKa, 
wv diro -rrpujTrjs yvvaiKos X^P Oi Tooavra 
ITT/] ; OUTOJ yap 6 Iajo~ri<p dSeA(/>os 
yivtTai TOV KActrrra, rjv oe vlos TOV 
Iaa>/3, fTTiK\rjv oe HdvOrjp KaXovftevov. 
oi OVTOI diro TOV HdvOrjpos eni- 

H. E. iii. 11. g. Mera T^J/ IaK(!j@ov 
fjuiprvpiav (ai r^f avTiKa yfvo/jLevrjv 
a\<uaiv T^J Ifpovaa\r]iJ.y [Ao-yos KO.T- 
X ft ] h- (TQ>V dvoffT6\eov iced TWV TOV 
Kvpiov naOrjTwv rovs elfffTi TO) ^ta; 
AetTTo/^eVovs 67rt TO.VTOV itavTa\66tv avv- 
(\6eiv a//a rofs vrpos ytvovs ward adpKa 
TOV Kvpiov (ir\iois yap Kal TOVTQJV 
irfptrjffav tiotTt TOTC TO> ftta}\ povhrjv 
re ofMov TOVS irdvTas ntpl TOV TWO. \pri 
StaSo^s trriKpivai dtov, 
i. Kal of) diro /^ta? yvwpirjy 
TOVS irdi/Tas ^vfjLtuiva TOV TOV KAcojra, 
ov Kal f) TOV (vayyf\iov fjivr)fj.ovtv(i 
ypa<pr), TOV T^S avToOi trapoiKias Opovov 
diov elvai ooKifj.dffai } dvuf/iov, cuj ye 
<pao~t, yeyovoTa. TOV ffojrrjpos. 

j. TOf yap ovv K\ct)irav doe\(pov TOV 
Iojar)<p vndpxeiv [ HTT/crtiTTros IffTOpet]. 

H. E. iii. 32. k. 7 [ ETTJ TOtmns 6 auros dvrjp dtrjyovfLevos TCI KUT& TOVS 
or)\ovpevovs (sc. fpa iavov KT\.} eirt\eyei els dpa~\ ^e x/3t TUV Tore \p6vuv trapOevos 
KaOapd Kal d8id<f>0opos epeivev 7) eKK\Tjaia, ev dofaw irov CTKOTCI els ft tytaKevovTOjv 
eiaeTi TOTC TWV, el Kai Tives vnrjpxov, irapa<pOeipeiv ein\eipovvT(av TOV vyir) Kavova 
TOV o~o)TT]piov 


H. E. iv. 22. 1. 4 Ata TOVTO 

rr/v KK\rj(TLav TrapOevov, 
yap <f>0apro a/coats yuaratats- 
ap^erai 8e 6 J3ov@i<s Sta TO 
/XT) yevtarOai avrov CTrtcrKOTrov VTTO- 
tf>@Lptv OLTTO TWV eTrra atpecrewj/, 
airros ^v, ev TO> Aaa>, d</> d>v 
, oOdV ^LfjiuvLavoi, Kai KAeo- 
s, o^ev KAeo/^nyi/ot", /cat 
, o^ev Aocrt^iavot , 
TopaOrjvoc, KOL 
(XTTO TOi;ra)v MevavSptavicrrat Kai 
Map/ctavto-rat Kat KapTro/c/oanai ot 
Kat OwaXevTtvtavot Kat BacriAeiSia- 
vol Kai SaTopvtAtavot CKao-ros 181005 

Kat erepotous 18 Lav 86av Trapetcr^ya- 

e > \ / 
yocrai/. a?ro TOVTWV 

(TTOt, \f/V$O7rpoc[)fJTaL, {J/ 
Xot, orrti/cs IfJiepLorav rrjv evwcrtv 
T^9 eKKXTycrtas <$opi/zaioi<; Aoyots 
Kara roC @ou Kat Kara rov Xpt- 
crroi) aurof . 

T. iJ. iii. 32. m. 3 aTro TOI;- 
rwv [8>;A.a8^ TOJV atperiKojv] 

yOpOV<TL TIV5 2t/>tWVOS TOl) 

a)? wro? O-TTO AavtS Kat Xpioria- 
vov, Kat O^TCJ? fj.aprvpL erwv wv 
Karov etKotrtv eTrt Tpatavoi) Kat- 
crapos Kat iirariKOv ArrtKOV. 

". iii. 32. 1. 2 [Kat TOU TOV />ia/)Tt;y 

S) 0V SlCKpopOlS 1J8TJ TTpOTtpOV 

rrep rti cui/ alptTiKWV Iffropw 

m. [eiiKpfpfi 8r)\wv clj apa] I/TTO 
\povov vno/j,tivas 

yopiav, iroXvTporrojs 6 br]\oi>iJ.(VO i us av 

XplffTlCLVOS KT\. 


H. E. iii. 12. a. [Kat em TOVTOIS (sc. Hyrjannros toropfi) ] Ovfawaaiavov //era 
TT)I/ TWV lepoffo\vfj.(uv aXcaaiv iravTas TOVS dirb ytvovs Aawi 8, us pr) irfpi\(KpOir) TIS 
irapa lovSaiois rwv drro rrjs ^aaiXiK^ (pv\fjs, avaforuoOai Tr/joara^at, p-^ia-rov re 
lovSaiois avOts IK ravTrjs Sicaynov iirapTr)9fjvai. TTJS atrtas. 

H. E. iii. 17. b. 
ds TroAAov? (Tri8(tdfj.(i 05 o AoptTiavos 
OVK oXiyov re TUIV em P<i>fj.r)s 

re Kai 

ov f*(T fv\6yov Kpi 
T a AAous firupavtis avdpas rais 
vnep rr)v Ivoptav ^rj/>aas (pvyais KOL 
rats rwv ovffiwv dnolBoXais dvairicas, 
re *"" 

Sfvrtpos Srjra ruv KaO rjftcav dvtKivet, 
Sicayftov, Kaiirfp rov irarpos aura; Oue- 
airaaiavov jiidtv Ka6 Tjuav O.TOTTOV 

Cramer and de Boor, w. s. b. Ao- 
mos Oveairaffiavov iro\\d ard 


TTJV JXepowos viK-fjaas w/xor^ra 


H. E. iii. 19. c. ToG 5 avrov Ao^friavov rovs dirb yevovs AavlS dvatpetaOai 
irpoardavros, [ira\aibs Kare\ei Ao-yos] /rrA. 

H. E. iii. 18. d. l Ev rovra> [jcare- Cramer and de Boor, u. s. d. KaO 

Xft \6yos^ rbv d-nooroXov dfjia Kal bv Kal rbv dnoo~ro\ov Kal evayye\iarf]v 
tvayyeXiar^v leadvvrjv en ra> f$iq> evoia- loadvvrjv ev Hdrp.<p irepiwpicrev. 
rpifjovra, rfjs (Is rbv Oeiov \6yov 
fjtaprvpias Hdrpov oiKeiv 
rfjv vrjaov. 

H. E. iii. 20. e. 9 Tore (sc. Nepoua rrjv dpxty Sta5a/zi/ou) S?) ovv ai rov 
dir6aro\ov I<vdvvr)v diro rrjs Kara rrjv vr)aov tpvyrjs rrjv em rfjs E<p(aov diarpi@T)v 
i [o rwv -nap jy/itV dpxaiojv irapadidcaai ^070$]. 

H.E. iii. 20. f. lv En 8^ 
TTpLrj(rav ol O.TTO yevo^s rov Kvptov 
viiovol lovSa rov Kara crdpKa Xe- 
yo/xevov avrov <xSeA,</>o* ov<s (TOV 
ttipecrtcov TIVCS/ a eSry 
u>s CK ycvovs ovras Aavt8. 

H. E. iii. 19. f. [HaAatos 
Xd-yos] (rGjvaiperiKwv rtvas} K 
aai rwv diroyovcav lovSa (rovrov 8 elvai 
d8e\<pov Hard odpita rov aajrfjpos} ws 
diro yevovs rvyxavovrow AavlS Kal ws 
avrov avyyevaav rov ~X.piarov (f>epov- 
TOJV. [ravra oe OTJ\O? Kara \tiv uSe 
TTOJS \tyajv 6 Hy7)anriros.~\ 

Cramer and de Boor, u. s. g. O /xcv eKaXetro 


H. E. iii. 20. h. l rovrovs 6 
^ovoKaros rjyaye Trpos Ao/x,eriav6i/ 
Katcrapa. e^o^etro yap TT)V 
rrapovo-Lav rov Xpto-roS ws Kat 
Hpajo^s. 2 Kat eTrrjpwTyo-ev av- 
rovs ei eK Aavt 8 eicriv, Kat 
yrjo-av. Tore ^pwr^crev 
Trocras KT^o-ets e^ovortv 17 TTOCTWV 
XprjjJidrwv Kvpievovo-w. ol 8e etTrav 
d/x^drepots evvaKtcr^tXta SrjvdpLa 
avrols fjiova, CKao-rw av- 

OUK ev dpyvptots t(f>acrKov 
, dXX ev 8taTt/x^cret yi}? TrXe- 
$pa)i/ rptcxKOJ/ra ewea /tovcav, e^ 
aiv Kat TOUS <^>dpovs dva^epctv Kat 

Cramer and de Boor, u. t. h. ffvv- 
rvxwv de Aofieriavos rots vloTs Iov5a 
rov dde\(puv rov Kvpiov, 

i. 3 Elra oe Kal rds x tp a * Tas * au - i. Ka -i yvovs (rrjv dperr)vy rwv dvSpwv 
rajv eirioeiKvvvat, fiaprvpiov rfjs avrovp- 
yias rrjV rov awftaros aicXrjpiav KOI 
rovs drrb rfjs ovve\ovs epyaaias evairo- 
rviKaOevras eirl rwv ISiarv xeipfav rv\ovs 
iraptardvras. * epoor-qOevras 5^ rrepl 
rov Xpiorov Kal rfjs @aat\eias avrov, 

* That some such words as these are to be supplied is suggested by the 
paraphrase in H. E. iii. 19. For the form see above, III e, 8. 


cvota ns ciT) Kal iroi KM irore (pavrjao- 
Hevr), \6yov oovvai us ov tfoa/u/n) pev 
ou5 eiriyeios, enovpdvios oe Kal dyye\iK?) 
rvyxdvoij em ovvreXeia rov aiuvos yevrj- 
aop.evr], oTrrjviKa e\0uv ev oo^rj Kpivei 
uvras Kal veKpovs Kal diroouo~ei eKaarca 
Kara rd eirirrjoevfjiaTa avrov 6 e(p 
ols fjnjSev avruv KareyvuKora rbv Ao- 
neriavov, d\\d Kal us evre\uv Kara- 
ppovT]0 avra, e\ev6epuvs p\v avrovs 
^ ^ x v s N 

rbv Kara rrjs eKK\r)o~ias 

H.E. iii. 32. k. 

TCU ow Kat TrporjyovvTai Trd(rr)<s 


yevous rov Kvpov, KO 

aOeias ev Tratrr; e 

Tpa iavov 

1. xeois ov 6 e/c ^etov rou Kvpiov, 
vtos KAwTra, 
VTTO raiv atpecrcwv, 
dxraimos Karrj-yopijOrj KOL avros CTTC 
TO> avTco Aoya) CTTI ArrtKOv TOV 


at/ct^o/xevo? e/xaprvpryo-e^ ws 
vTrepOa.vp.a^f.iv Kat TOV 
TTOJS e/caroi/ et/coo"t rfy^a- 
vo>v erwv VTrejLfww Kal 

rov Ka& f)p.ui> eiravaaro 

H.E. iii. 20. k. 6 Tovs St aTro- 
Av^eVras rj^aaoQai ruv (KK\T)O~IUV, us 
av 5f} pdprvpas ofiov Kal diro yevovs 
ovras rov Kvpiov, ytvo^tvrjs re eiprjvrjs 
T/sai aJ ou irapafttwat avTovs rev 
7 [Taura jutv o 

H. J?. iii. 32. 1. a Eir2 irXeiarais 
aiKtaOeis fjufpais avrov re rov oiKaarfjv 
Kal rovs dfup avrov els rd fieyiara 
Karair\r]as, ru rov Kvpiov irdQti irapa- 
n\T)o~iov TA. 

H. E. iii. 32. m. 4 [*7;ati S 6 avrbs us apa] /fat rovs Karrjyopovs avrov, 
{rjrovfjifvuv TOTC ruv diro rfjs PaaiXiKrjs lovSaicav <pv\^s, us av ( avruv ovras 
d\uvai awtftrj. 

H. E. iii. 16. a. "On ye Kara rbv or]\ovfj.evov (sc. Aoperiavbv} rd rfjs Kopiv- 
Oiuv KeKivrjro ardaeus, [dioxpeus fJidprvs 6 I 

H. E. iv. 22. b. l [ AKovaai ye rot 
ndpeariv p.erd\ nva Ttepl rfjs K\rjp,evros 
Trpbs KopivOiovs eiriaro\^s [avru eiprj- 

Epiph. Haer. 27. 6 (p. 107^ B). b. 
A.eyei ydp ev pia. ruv eirio"ro\uv avrov, 

6 Xao? TOV 

rial rovro <rvfj.l3ov\evuv [rjvpof^ev ydp 

ev naiv virop.vTjfjiaTio ft.ofs rovro 

H. E. iv. 22. 


C. 2 Kat eTre/xevev fj eKKXrjcria rj Kopiv^twv iv TO) 


H. E. iv. 22. d. . . 

H.E. iv. 22. d. l [ O 

HyrjaiTrnos kv TreVre rofy els 
Qovaiv viroiJ.VTip.aaiv TTJS loias 


H. E. iv. 22. e. 2 Kal 

at? crvj/aveTra^/xcv ra> opOtp Aoyw. 

H.E. iv. 22. f. 3 



ois ST]\OI us~\ TrAetaTots frnffKorrois 
diro5T]fj.iav a 

r a rots Koptv0tois ^/xe pas iKavas, 

ov 8iaKovos ^ 
, Kat Trapa AVIK^TOV 


Epiph. Haer. 27. 6 
(p. 107 A), g. E^ Pw/zT/ 
*yap yeyovaai trpwTOi II t- 
rpos at IlafJAos diroffroXoi 
Kal firiafcoiroi, fira AtVos, 
fir a KA^roy, 


.. iv. . f. 7 Ka0 6^ (sc. 
A.VIKT)TOV} [ Hyrianriros iaropii] kavjov 
tm5r]fj,r)aai rr) Pupr} -rrapafj-fivai re 

wv Hirpov Kal TlavXov, ov 
(iriUvrjiJ.ovfVd Hav\os kv 
TT) irpos Pcw/iatovs kiriffTO- 
\rj. [Kai nySels OavfJ.a- 
(TQj on irpb avrov aAAot 

OTTO TWV airoaT6\<uv t OVTOS 


Kal nauAou.] Kal OVTOS 
yap avyxp vos yivfrai TWV 
airo(TT6\GJV. fir ovv ZTI 
avTwv vrro Ilf- 

poQeffiav TTJS 

Epiph. Haer. 27. 5, 6 
(p. 106 D). h. 2,(f>payi- 
Sa ok kv KavTTjpi, rj Si fm- 
TTjSfvafojs vpiov } TJ pa(f>i5os 
kmTiOtaaiv OVTOI ol dnb 
KaprroKpd km TOV 8tibv 
\o&bv TOV urbs TOIS vrr 

Epipli. Haer. 27. 6 
(p. 107 C). g. Mcra TO 

irpbs otxaovo ZTT) fKaaTOv} 
peTO. TTIV TOV dyiov TltTpov 
ical llav\ov TetevTrjv, TTJV 
km TO> OQJoeKaTtv Iret N- 

rofy oiriaca nepeffi. TOV A.O- 
&ov TOV oeiov UTOS. 

ft So the Latin, signant cauteriantes . The Greek has simply KavT7jpid{ 

Epiph. Haer. 27. 6 
(p. 107 D). g."O^o;s 77 TUV 
kv Pufj-Tj kmaKonuv Siaoo- 
TavTTjv e xet TT)V O.KO- 
\ov6iav HfTpos Kal Tlav- 
Aos. Aivos Kal K\T)TOS, 


SvffTos, T(\cff<p6pos, "fyt- 

vos, Iltoy, AviKijTos.y 

Iren. Adv. Haer. i. 25. 
h. 6 TovTcav (sc. TUV dirb 
KapiroKpaTov} Tivks Kal 


7TW9 Ma/o/ceAAtVa rts 

VTT avTw 

77 TroAAou? e 

ei> Xpovots Avt/oyrov 

Epiph. ITaer. 27. 6 
(p. 107 D). h. Ey xpo- 
i/ots roivvv, [els H<pt]iJitv,~\ 

iva Iv 



u0~ao~a TTO\\OVS T>V 

Xvfj.rjvafj.evr) fj 

i. TOV fJifra rriv fka8o)(f)v lliov teal rwv 

Epiph. Haer. 27. 6(p. JOS A), j. Kal 
yovfv apx?) yvojariKuv ^^av KO.- 
\ovfj.vaiv. Zxovcri 8 tiKovas fv^oj-ypd- 
(povs 8id xpcafj-drojv, dAAa KOI ot i 
Xpvcrov Kai dpyvpov teal Xoinrjs v\T]s,a.Tiva 
(KTVTTujjiaTd (paatv civai TOV irjcrov, KCLI 
TO.VTO. v-nb HOVT IOV HtXdrov yeyf vrjaOai , 


Itjaov, ore fVb ifjfj.i Tq> TWV dvOpwir&v 
ytVct. Kpv^Srjv Se ras Toiavras X ovfflV 
eiKovaSy d\\d at (piXoaotycav TLVWV, 
TlvOayopov Kai TlXdravos teal ApiaroTf- 
\ovs Kai \onrwv, fj,tO wv (pi\oao<pojv 
%T(pa (KTvndjfj.aTa TOV Irjaov TiOtaaiv, 
idpvaavrfs TC npoaKwovai Kai ra riuv 
tdvwv fTTiTfXovai pvaTTipia. 0Tif)o~avT(s 
yap ravTas ras eiKovas Ta TUJV I6vwv 
eOi) Xonruv iToiovai. [riva 8 taTiv 
fOrj aXA. TJ Ovaiai Kai ra d\\a ;] 
Se tlvai fj.6vr]s auT-qpiav <pao~l Kai 

H. E. iv. 22. k. 3 Ev 
8e StaSo^^ /cat iv eKcurny TroAet ov- 
TWS e^et w? 6 vo/x,os 
ot 7rpo<f>r)T(U Kat 6 

Unde et Marcellina, 
quae Romam sub Ani- 
ceto venit, cum esset 
huius doctrinae, multos 

i. Epiph. .ffaer. 27. 6 (p. 107 D). 
6 aV<o ev ru> KaraAoyw 

Iren. ulrfv. Jfaer. i.25. j. 5 flnosticos 
se autem vocant : etiam imagines * 
quasdam quidem depictas quasdam 
autem et de reliqua materia fabri- 
catas habent, dicentes formam 
Christi factam a Pilato illo in tern- 
pore b quo fuit lesus cum hominibus. 

Et has coronant, et proponunt eas 
cum imaginibus mundi philoso- 
phorum, videlicet cum imagine 
Pythagorae, et Platonis et Aristo- 
telis, et reliquorum ; 

et reliquam observationem circa eas 
similiter ut gentes faciunt. 

H. E. iv. 22. k. l Kai [c&s on] 

avTi)v irap 



Stephanus Gobarus ap. Photium Bibl. 232 (ed. Bekker, p. 288). "On TO. 
^TOifj-aafjifva TOIS SiKaiois dyaOd ovre 6<}>6a\fjio5 eldtv, OVT o3j fyovotv, OVTC enl 
Kap8iav dvOpwirov dveftjj. \JHyr) GITTITOS rot, dp\atos Tf dvrip Kai d7roaTO\iKos, 
v TO) TTfjmT<f> TCJV {/TTO/xv^/xaTcuj/, ovK 018 oTt Kai ira6(i>v^\ ua.Tr)v p.\v clpfjaOai ravra 
[Af7<,] at KaTaif/fvSfadai TovsTavra <pai*(VOvsT(Juv TC Oeicuv ypatywv Kai TOV Kvpiov 
\eyovTos, MaKapiot of ocpOaXpol vpwv of PXtirovT t$ , Kai Ta WTO. 
KOI efs. 

* Greek, at etKovas 8t. 

b Greek, KaTaaKtvd^ovai TOV XptoTov, \tyovTS VTTO Tli\aTOV TO) Kaipy 


IT may be well at the outset to make clear the purpose 
with which this Essay has been written. For some time 
the suspicion has forced itself upon me that a good deal 
that has been published on the subject of Montanism has 
been based on investigations which proceeded on a faulty 
method. I propose to set forth the reasons which have 
led me to entertain this suspicion. My hope is that, if 
my argument is not accepted, it may elicit criticism 
which shall suggest a truer interpretation of the evidence 
which is here presented. 

The most illustrious adherent of the Moiitanist move 
ment was undoubtedly Tertullian of Carthage. And for 
the purpose of the inquirer into the inner meaning of 
Montanism Tertullian has the advantage of being a volu 
minous writer, of whose treatises moreover many have 
survived. The later writings of Tertullian are in fact 
if we except a few oracles of the Phrygian prophets not 
quoted by him the only source from which we can 
acquire a first-hand knowledge of Montanist principles 
and practice. Historians can scarcely be blamed if they 
have given them a very high place among the materials 
now available for ascertaining the character of the Phry 
gian heresy. And the procedure usually adopted by in 
vestigators has, if I am not mistaken, been suggested by 
an unquestioning assumption of their primary authority 
for the purpose in hand. It has been assumed that what 
Tertullian reckons as Montanist doctrine and custom is 
really such. The evidence supplied by him has been 
accepted as indisputably reliable : the statements of 


Catholic writers which appear to conflict with it have 
either been tortured into agreement with his dicta, or have 
been rejected as calumnies. It has thus come to pass that 
what passes current as Montanism is in the main identical 
with the later theology of Tertullian. We seek a descrip 
tion of a system which penetrated from its first home in 
Phrygia into many regions ; and we have been content 
to accept instead an account which we have no assurance 
for believing to be more than the picture of a local 
development of the movement, or even of its embodiment 
in a single individual. 

The hypothesis which is the ground of this method is 
the homogeneity of Montanism. Phrygian Montanism 
and African Montanism are assumed to be, in great 
measure, the same thing. But is this assumption justified ? 
Was Montanism really homogeneous ? 

It seems to me that a priori we should scarcely expect 
this to be the case. 

The movement began, as we learn from early documents 
preserved by Eusebius and Epiphanius, at an obscure 
village called Ardabau in Mysia, not far from the border 
of Phrygia. There, probably in the fifties of the second 
century, Montanus, a new convert to Christianity, who had 
been a priest of Cybele, began to prophesy. And his 
prophesyings were accompanied by strange phenomena 
closely resembling those associated with demoniacal 
possession. He spoke in an ecstasy, as his followers 
would have expressed it. 

Montanus was soon joined by two women, Maximilla 
and Priscilla or Prisca, who also claimed to possess the 
prophetic charisma, and whose utterances were similar 
in matter and in manner to those of their leader. Before 
long the movement acquired a local centre at Pepuza and 
Tymion, villages of Phrygia, to which the name of Jeru- 


sal em was given by Montanus himself. Its adherents 
were by and by excommunicated by many synods, and 
Montanism became a sect with a definite organization. 
The prophecies of Montanus, Maximilla, and Priscilla were 
committed to writing, 1 were widely circulated, and were 
regarded by friends and foes as authoritative statements 
of all that distinguished the Montanistic teaching from 
current Christianity. By the Montanists themselves the 
prophetic oracles were placed at least on a level with 
the Gospels and the Apostolic Scriptures. 

Now it is evident that the moment the oracles of the 
original exponents of the New Prophecy were written 
down, and read without the explanations of the prophets, 
they became, as truly as the Scriptures which they in part 
superseded, a nose of wax. All depended on their 
interpretation. And as Montanism spread into different 
countries, and was accepted by men of different environ 
ment and mental training, the interpretations put upon 
them were certain to be diverse. From this we have 
ample warrant for the expectation that Montanism would, 
in some degree, display a divergent type in each country 
to which it gained admission. 

It may, perhaps, make the meaning of what I have said 
clearer, and at the same time justify the conclusion which 
I have reached on a priori grounds, if I proceed to give 
what may be termed an example of the forces of disinte 
gration at work. 

Didymus of Alexandria, 2 or rather the early and valuable 
document 3 on which he bases his account of the sect 

1 This has been denied. See De Soyres, Monlanism and the Primitive 
Church, p. 31. But the argument is unaffected if it be admitted that 
the ipsissima verba of the prophecies, or what were believed to be such, 
were preserved by oral tradition. 2 De Trin. iii. 41. 

3 But see G. Ficker, in Zeitsch. f. Kirchengesch. xxvi. 447 ff. ; G. Bardy, 
Didijme VAveugle, Paris, 1910, p. 237 f. 


charges the Montanists with three errors. The first of 
them is, that on the plea of a prophetic revelation, supported 
by certain passages from the latter chapters of the fourth 
Gospel, they affirmed (a.Tro[j.avTtvovTaL) that there is one 
irpoo-toTTov of the three divine vTrocrrda-ety. That is to say, 
they taught what later came to be known as Sabellianism. 
The oracle on which they relied for this teaching, accord 
ing to Didymus, was a saying of Montanus, I am the 
Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost. This certainly 
sounds like Moiiarchian heresy. So also does a saying 
of Maximilla recorded by Asterius Urbanus, 1 I am Word 
and Spirit and Power for the words prjfia, tri/eOfta, and 
SvvafjLis must be taken as equivalent to Montanus s Son, 
Spirit, and Father. And in support of the inference 
drawn from these, appeal might have been also made to 
some other oracles among the few that remain. 2 If we 
had only the statement of Didymus and the oracles to 
which I have referred we might have confidently classed 
the Montanists with the Sabellians. But we turn to Tertul- 
lian. There is no need to say that he, whether as Catholic 
or as Montanist, did not deviate from orthodoxy. He was 
an ardent opponent of the Moiiarchian Praxeas. And he 
declares that it was exactly hisMontanism which specially 
fitted him to be the champion of the true faith. 3 For the 
Paraclete had made use of expressions which, without 
any such ambiguity as was found in the phrases of 
Scripture, denounced the teaching of Praxeas as false. It 
is true that the only oracle which he quotes in this 
connexion rather tells against his contention ; 4 but he 

1 Ap. Eus. H. E. v. 16. 17. 

2 e. g. the oracle quoted in Epiph. Haer. 48. 11. 

3 Adv. Prax. 2, 13, De Cam. Res. 63. 

4 Adv. Prax. 8. Protulit enim Dens sermonem, quern admodum 
etiam Paracletus docet, sicut radix fruticein et fons fluvium sol 
radium. 1 


refers to another, which, if his paraphrase of it is reliable, 
must have been emphatically orthodox. 1 Moreover, he 
vouches for the orthodoxy of the entire body of the 
Montanists. No one, he assures us, had ever accused them 
of heresy. 2 Their rules of discipline such is his argument 
cannot be corrupt, for error in doctrine always precedes 
error in discipline. 3 

The fact is that, in spite of the vehemence of Tertullian, 
the Montanists were as much divided as their opponents 
on the question of the Divine Monarchy. Besides the 
orthodox party among them, to which Tertullian himself 
belonged, known as the Cataproclans, there was a hetero 
dox party, which he was ignorant of, or, more probably, 
chose to ignore the Cataeschinites. This we may gather 
from the Philosophumena of Hippolytus, and from the 
treatise Against Heresies of Pseudo-Tertullian, who, no 
doubt, here as elsewhere, derives his information from 
Hippolytus s Syntagma* It is unnecessary to cite other 
authorities in confirmation of the statements of Hippolytus. 
The remarkable fact is that both the orthodox and the 
heterodox parties among the Montanists sheltered them 
selves behind the oracles of the prophets. 

But it was not only the difficulty of interpreting the 
oracles, and applying them to controversies which did 
not belong to the place and period of the original prophets, 
which tended to divide the Montanists. There were at 
least three other influences, all closely related to each 
other, which might well lead to this result. 

The first of these was the oracles of later prophets. 
For the charismata were by no means confined to the first 
three. Theodotus, the first steward of the New Prophecy, 
was a fellow worker of Montanus, and he was almost 

1 Adv. Prax. 30. 2 De leiun. 1. 3 De Monog. 2. 

4 Hippol. Phllos. viii. 19, Ps.-Terfc. Haer. 7. 


certainly a prophet. 1 Apollonius, about the year 200, 
mentions both a prophet and a prophetess ; 2 and, not 
withstanding the opinion of so eminent a historian as 
Harnack, 3 one can hardly suppose that they are to be 
identified with Montanus and Maximilla or Priscilla. 
In any case Apollonius implies that Maximilla and 
Priscilla had successors by his remark that they were 
the first prophetesses to abandon their husbands. 4 Fir- 
milian, in his letter to Cyprian, speaks of a prophetess 
(probably a Montanist) who appeared in Cappadocia 
about 236 A. D. 5 And finally Epiphanius tells of a 
prophetess named Quintilla. 6 Whether she was one of 
those already mentioned we cannot determine. 7 She was 
certainly not a member of the original group. There is 
no evidence that the inspired utterances of these later 
prophets were circulated in writing. Certainly none of 
them is quoted in writings now extant. They probably 
had no more than a local celebrity. The same remark 
may be made about Themiso, whose Catholic epistle, 
written in imitation of the apostle , 8 claimed, we cannot 
doubt, to have been inspired. But that they furthered the 
development of Montanism in the districts where they 
were known it is impossible not to believe. And the 
narrower the sphere of their influence so much the more 

1 Anon. ap. Eus. H. E. v. 16. 14. 

2 Ap. Eus. H. E. v. 18. 4, 6, 7, 10. 3 Chronologic, i. 370. 

4 Eus. H. E. V. 18. 3 deiKWfJicv ovv O.VTO.S TTpcoras ras 7rpo<f)r)Ti8as ravTas 
, . . TOVS avdpas KaraXurovo-as. 

6 Cyp. Ep. 75. 10 (Hartel, p. 817). For the date see De Soyres, 
op. cit., p. 54 ; Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, 1893, p. 464. 

6 Haer. 49. 

7 Bonwetsch (Die Geschichte des Montanismus, Erlangen, 1881, 
p. 171) suggests that she may have been the prophetess mentioned by 
Firmilian ; Salmon (Diet, of Christ. Biog. iii. 939), that she was the 
prophetess referred to by Apollonius. 

8 Apollonius ap. Eus. H. E. v. 18. 5. 

1353 I 


their sayings tended to generate purely local forms of the 

In the West, so far as I know, there is no mention of 
later prophets. But Tertullian several times refers to the 
visions of sisters, 1 and he appeals on one occasion to the 
vision of Saturus, which we can still read in the Acts of 
Perpetua. 2 In each case the vision is used as giving 
authority to a disciplinary custom or a doctrine advocated 
by the writer. Thus in the West, as in the East, the 
means were at hand of explaining or adding to the original 
deposit of the New Prophecy by an authority which was 
held to be divine. 

A second agent of development which must be taken 
into account is the weight of influence exerted by promi 
nent members of the sect, who were not themselves 
prophets, or possessed of charismata which involved 
the capacity for receiving revelations by visions or 

Tertullian, in his own person, notably illustrates the 
power of this influence. He nowhere claims to have had 
revelations. He was simply, in his own view, an adherent 
of the Paraclete. Yet his influence in determining the 
form of Montanism in Africa must have been immense. 
Dr. Eendel Harris and Professor Gifford, in the introduction 
to their edition of the Acts of the Martyrdom of Perpetua 
and Felicitas? direct attention to the difficulty with 
which any of his writings, except a very few tracts, can 
satisfactorily be labelled non-Montanist . They have 
themselves transferred that which previous writers had 
regarded as probably Tertullian s earliest existing 
writing 4 to the Montanistic period of his life. The fact 

1 e. g. De. An. 9, De Virg. Vel. 17. 

2 De An. 55. See also De Spect. 26, De Idol. 15. 

3 Cambridge, 1890, pp. 28 ff. 4 Diet, of Christ. Biog. iv. 822. 


is that the unquestionably Montanistic treatises are re 
cognized merely by more or less explicit allusions to the 
revelations of the Paraclete. The doctrines and practices 
advocated in his latest works are, for the most part, essen 
tially the same as those upheld in the earliest now extant. 1 
If there is any difference between them it is amply 
accounted for by the development of opinion which would 
inevitably take place in a man of Tertullian s character. 
They are presented from new points of view and under 
new sanctions, but in their main substance they are un 
changed. Of this fact it is superfluous to give proof, and 
the inference from it is irresistible. Tertullian brought 
far more to Montanism than he found in it. It is an in 
ference which might have been drawn if we knew nothing 
more of the man than what his writings reveal of his 
masterful personality. But if African Montanism was 
largely made by Tertullian, it must have differed widely 
from the Montanism which in his day, or at any other 
time, existed in Phrygia. 2 

We have from Tertullian himself a story which well 
illustrates how the influence of later revelations and the 
influence of personality helped each other in producing 
the local development of Montanism. In his treatise 
De Anima 9 he speaks of a certain sister, who had the 
charisma of revelations. The material for visions was 
often supplied by the lessons, psalms, discourses, &c., of the 

1 Compare Gwatkin, Early Church History, ii. 238 : He was a 
Montanist at heart long before he accepted the oracles of the New 

2 Mr. De Soyres, speaking of the teaching set forth in Tertullian s 
treatises De Virginibus Velandis, De SpectacuUs, and De Corona Militis, 
remarks (p. 96), It is significant that not even an Epiphanius found 
any capital in this department. This fact Mr. De Soyres explains in 
his own way. But the true explanation may very well be that the 
opinions of Tertullian expressed in those tracts had no counterpart 
in Eastern Montanism, with which alone Epiphanius was concerned. 

I 2 


church service. During service, on one occasion, when 
Tertullian was discoursing on the soul, the sister fell into 
an ecstasy and saw a vision. Subsequently, when service 
was over, and the congregation dismissed, she was invited 
to describe her vision. Among other things she declared 
that she had seen a soul which displayed all the signs of 
a corporeal nature. Thus was established a favourite 
doctrine of the preacher, on which he had no doubt been 
insisting in his sermon. I shall have occasion to refer to 
this story again. For the present it is sufficient to 
observe that the preacher obviously, though he was un 
conscious that he had done so, produced the vision, 
while the vision in its turn was adduced to impart divine 
sanction to the preacher s doctrine. A new tenet was 
thus added to the official teaching of African Montanism, 
nominally by a revelation, really by the personality of 

The third power which co-operated with revelations and 
personal force in the moulding of Montanism need only 
be mentioned the power of local environment. This 
always exercises its subtle influence on a transplanted 
faith. It has in no small degree affected Christianity 
itself. And wherever its influence is effective it produces 
a change of form. 

The conclusion to which these considerations compel us 
is, I believe, that any large measure of homogeneity in 
Montanism is a thing which could not be looked for 
beforehand. Any method of investigation which assumes 
it must therefore be radically wrong. The only way to 
arrive at a true conception of Montanism is to begin by 
examining Phrygian Montanism and African Montanism 
apart. It may be urged that the only Montanism of 
which we can learn anything is a developed or a decadent 
Montanism. That may be in part true. But we can 


reach a knowledge of its inner principle in no other way 
than by a preliminary study of the later forms, each by 
itself, and by tracing them back to their common root. 
By merely combining them we can attain no sure result. 
And for this purpose an inquiry into Phrygian Monta- 
nism the heresy of the Phrygians in its original home, 
shaped only by its original environment scanty and 
unsatisfying as the materials for such an inquiry are, is 
immeasurably more important than an inquiry into the 
exotic Montanism of Tertullian. 

It remains to point out one or two very striking 
instances of dissimilarity between Phrygian Montanism 
and the current conception of Montanism, mainly drawn 
from Tertullian, which such a study seems to me to reveal. 

Let us note, in the first place, what we may learn from 
the earliest documents as to the conception which was 
held in Phrygia of the nature of the New Prophecy. It 
is well known that Montanus and his companions pro 
phesied in ecstasy, and that their utterances were accom 
panied by strange ravings. 1 The Catholics laid hold of 
this fact as demonstrating that they were inspired by an 
evil spirit ; and the defenders of Montanism replied that 
being in a state of ecstasy was a condition of the exercise 
of the prophetic gift. But all this seems to me to have 
been an afterthought. The Catholics made much of the 
frenzy of the prophets merely as a way of evading an 
argument of the Montanists which, without bringing in 
this other issue, was not easily disposed of. This earlier 
argument is revealed by the anonymous writer quoted 
by Eusebius. 2 The Montanists, he says, evidently quoting 

1 Eus. H. E. v. 16. 7, 9. 

2 Lightfoot (Ignatius, i. 482 f.) and Harnack (Chronologic, i. 364 f.) 
agree in dating the anonymous treatise A. D. 192-193. It was under 
taken at the request of Avircius Marcellus of Hieropolis in the 


from one of their books, boasted of Agabus, Judas, Silas, 
the daughters of Philip, Ammia of Philadelphia, and 
Quadratus ; and from the last two they claimed to have 
received the prophetic gift by way of succession (SieSegavTo). 1 
That is to say, they received their charismata as successors 
in the line of New Testament prophets, which all believed 
would remain until the end, just as the bishops had 
received their office from a line of predecessors which 
went back to apostolic days. They were the last prophets, 
no doubt ; they had the gifts in a pre-eminent degree ; 
in them was fulfilled the promise of the Paraclete. All 
Montanist writers maintained that position. But still, 
they were the last and the greatest in a line of succession. 

It is hazardous to assert a negative. But I cannot 
recall any trace of this notion of a prophetic succession in 
the "West. Tertullian seems consistently to ignore all 
prophecy between the Baptist, or at any rate the apostles, 
and Montanus. 2 

And I may here observe that the impression left by 
a perusal of the extant passages of Tertullian 3 in which 
he refers to ecstasy as a condition of prophec} 7 is that 
the ecstasy which he contemplated was something very 
different from the violent and uncontrolled ravings of 

Phrygian Pentapolis (Eus. v. 16. 3), and the writer speaks of Avircius 
and Zoticus of Otrous, a neighbouring town, as his fellow presbyters 
( 5 roO o-vfjiTTpea^vTepov TJ|JLCOV ZomKoC). It is probable therefore that 
all three were bishops of the Pentapolis, and that Miltiades, against 
whose followers the treatise was directed, was a Montanist leader of 
the same district. 

1 Eus. H. E. v. 17. 3, 4. 

2 De An. 9 ; cp. De Virg. Vel. 1, De Monog. 3, De leiun. 12. 

3 See especially De Anima 45, where he makes use of the favourite 
Montanist text, Gen. ii. 21. The whole chapter should be compared 
with Epiph. Haer. 48. 3, 4. In several respects Tertullian appears to 
be more in harmony with the Catholic writer used by Epiphaniusthan 
with the Montanist opinions which that writer combats. See also 
De Anima 11, 21, De leiun. 3. 


the Phrygian prophets as reported (possibly not without 
exaggeration) by the Anonymous. 1 Epiphanius says 
truly that " the word eWrao-i? has different meanings, 2 
and I am inclined to think that western Montanists used 
it in one sense, and their Phrygian brethren in another. 
The account of the sister whose ecstasy was kept so well 
in hand that she could wait patiently till service was 
over before relating her vision stands in curious contrast 
to the narrative of the proceedings at Ardabau. 

A comparison of these two stories recalls also another 
marked difference between the Montanism of Phrygia 
and that of Africa. In Phrygia women were given a high 
position in the native cults. And among the Montanists 
they retained it. Montanus evidently prophesied in the 
midst of a congregation. There were large numbers 
present (6 xAoi), some of whom would have silenced him, 
while others opposed their efforts. And it seems to be 
suggested that Maximilla and Priscilla likewise addressed 
a Christian assembly. 3 But however that may be 
Firmilian, as we have seen, makes mention of a third - 
century prophetess, probably a Montanist, of whom he 
states that she baptized and celebrated the Eucharist. 4 
Epiphanius describes a curious service of the Quintillians 
(who were obviously the Montanists under another name) 
at Pepuza, in which the officiants were seven virgins, who 

1 Ap. Bus. H. E. v. 16. 7, 8 ; 17. 2. It will be observed that the 
Anonymous substitutes for eWrao-ts the stronger word TrapeWrao-ty. 

2 Haer. 48. 4. 

3 They spoke in the same way as Montanus (H. E. v. 16. 9). And it is 
added, by way of explanation, that they did so e ^poVcos KCU aKaipcos <al 
a\\oTpioTp6rro)s. There is nothing corresponding to the second adverb 
in the description of Montanus s utterances. It may perhaps indicate 
that they spoke during a church service ; which would be an improper 
occasion for speech for women, though not for a man. 

4 Cyprian, Ep. 75. 10 (Hartel, p. 818). 


prophesied to the people ; and he declares that they had 
female bishops and priests. 1 "We are not surprised to find 
Catholics indignantly quoting St. Paul s injunction about 
women keeping silence in the Church. 

This peculiarity of Montanism certainly never found its 
way into the West. It is not a Catholic, but Tertullian, 
in one of his most distinctly Montanist writings, who 
says, It is not permitted to a woman to speak in Church, 
nor yet to teach, nor to baptize, nor to offer, nor to assume 
any office which belongs to a man, least of all the priest 
hood. 2 

Another feature of the Phrygian heresy deserves 
attention at this point. I have already mentioned the 
importance of Pepuza as the local centre of the sect in 
its earliest days. To this Jerusalem Montanus would 
have gathered men from all quarters, 3 doubtless that they 
might await the Parousia of the Lord which it was 
believed would take place there. 4 Pepuza was in fact 
the Holy City of the Phrygian Montanists. And so it 
came to pass that by some they were called Pepuzians. 
But there is not a trace of any acknowledgement on the 
part of Tertullian of the sanctity of Pepuza. One must 
not, indeed, lay too much stress upon the fact that he 
never mentions it in his extant writings. But there is 
one piece of evidence of a more positive kind which is not 
to be overlooked. In a well-known passage of his Mon 
tanist treatise against Marcion 5 he avows his belief that 
a kingdom would be established on earth after the resurrec 
tion, in Jerusalem, the city prepared by God, let down from 
heaven. And he speaks of an oracle of the New Prophecy 

1 Haer. 49. 2, 3. 2 De Virg. Vel. 9. 

3 H. E. v. 18. 2. Maximilla prophesied there. Ib. 13. And so did 
at least one other early prophetess. Epiph. Haer. 49. 1. 

4 Epiph. 48. 4 ; 49. 1. * ^ 2 4. 


which announced that an image of this city would be seen 
before its actual establishment on earth. The prediction, 
he declares, had been fulfilled not long before he wrote 
by a vision, which heathen as well as Christian witnesses 
beheld in Judaea^ in the morning of forty successive 
days, of a city suspended from heaven. This passage is 
an unmistakable indication that Tertullian did not look 
for the reign of the saints at Pepuza or anywhere else in 
Phrygia ; but that he clung to the belief held by Justin 
Martyr and other Christians of the second century that 
after the resurrection the faithful would be gathered 
together for a thousand years in Jerusalem, builded and 
adorned and enlarged. x But if so, he was ignorant of, 
or repudiated, a belief which was of the essence of 
Phrygian Montanism. He was a Millenarian, but not a 
Millenarian of the Montanist type. 

It is worth while to inquire how so startling a departure 
from Phrygian teaching can be accounted for. It is 
obvious, indeed, that belief in the sanctity of Pepuza 
would tend to become less vivid the further Montanism 
spread beyond the region of its birth. It would be 
difficult to persuade an Italian or an African that a little 
village in Asia, the very name of which he had never 
before heard, was the most sacred spot in the world, 
chosen by Christ as the scene of His second Advent. 
Montanist missionaries in Europe would perhaps not 
insist upon the doctrine too strongly ; and so in time it 
would disappear from the minds of their converts. But 
how about Tertullian ? He was familiar with the oracles 
of the prophets, and he would certainly not refuse to 
accept a doctrine which he found in them. Was there 
then no reference in the oracles to Pepuza or the Parou- 
sia to be expected there ? This is scarcely conceivable. 
1 Justin, Dial. 80. 


I may venture to make two suggestions, either of which, 
if well founded, will suffice to remove the difficulty. It 
may have been that where verPepuza was referred to in the 
oracles it was spoken of, not by its proper name, but by 
the new name of Jerusalem which Montanus had given 
it. In that case Tertullian may have misunderstood the 
meaning of the statements about the Parousia, taking 
Jerusalem in its literal sense. Or, again, it may have 
been that his collection of the oracles was incomplete, and 
that in those to which he had access Pepuza was not 
referred to as a place of special sanctity. 1 If the latter 
supposition is correct it is easy to understand that 
Tertullian may have but imperfectly understood the 
character of the earlier Montanistic teaching, not only in 
this matter but in much else. 

Not much is known of the penitential discipline of the 
eastern Montanists. But there is ground for believing 
that in this matter also they differed from the Africans. 
Apollonius 2 discusses the case of one Alexander, whom 

1 There is of course no difficulty in supposing that several collec 
tions of the sayings of the prophets were in circulation, the contents 
of which varied considerably. If it be true that they were not com 
mitted to writing, but transmitted orally, the oracles known to one 
Montanist congregation might differ widely from those known to 
another ; and this would be specially likely in the case of communities 
outside Phrygia. It seems to me almost certain that Tertullian was 
ignorant of the oracle reported in Epiph. Haer. 49. 1. But possibly 
it is not genuine. Speaking generally, it is remarkable how little 
there is in common between the oracles quoted by Tertullian and 
those quoted by Greek writers. 

2 Apollonius says that he wrote forty years after the beginning of 
Montanism (Eus. H. E. v. 18. 12). Hence Harnack (Chronologic, i. 
370-375) dates his treatise A.D. 196-197. But, though it is probable 
that Montanus prophesied for the first time in 156, we cannot be sure 
that Apollonius was accurately informed on that point, neither are 
we certain that he did not use round numbers when he spoke of the 
forty years that had elapsed since the New Prophecy began. The 


the sectaries regarded as a martyr, but whom he affirmed 
to have been tried not for the Name but for robbery. 1 
After his release he spent some years with a prophet. 
Apollonius sneers after his accustomed fashion : Which 
of them forgives the sins of the other ? Does the prophet 
forgive the robberies of the martyr, or the martyr the 
extortions of the prophet ? This implies that prophets 
were supposed by the Montanists_to have the power of 
absolution. And in this insinuation Apollonius is con 
firmed, not only by Tertullian, but also (which is more 
to the purpose) by an oracle which Tertullian quotes. 2 
We have therefore no reason to doubt the further insinua 
tion that martyrs were regarded as possessed of the same 
power. 3 But the African Montanists allowed no such 
prerogative to the martyrs. In Carthage it was only the 
Catholics who admitted the validity of their absolutions, 
and Tertullian heaps much scorn upon them for so doing. 4 

But we must now proceed to discuss two questions 
which will be recognized as of fundamental importance. 
Did Montanism inculcate asceticism ? No one can doubt 
that, as expounded by Tertullian, it did. But we are 
concerned with Phrygian Montanism. What evidence 
have we as to asceticism among the adherents of the New 
Prophecy in Phrygia ? 

The writer who gives us most help in answering this 
question is Apollonius. In the passages quoted from him 

recrudescence of prophecy to which he bears witness seems to indicate 
a longer period than four years between the Anonymous and him. 
Possibly therefore he wrote as late as A.D. 200. He was certainly an 
Asian, and possibly, as Praedestinatus says, bishop of Ephesus. 

1 Ap. Eus. H. E. v. 18. 6-9. 

2 De Pud. 21. Tertullian himself held that certain sins were un 
pardonable ( 19), an opinion which he has some difficulty in re 
conciling with the - oracle. 

3 Cp. Bonwetsch, p. 112. 4 De Pud. 22. 


by Eusebius he insists that the lives of the Montanist 
martyrs and prophets do not conform to the requirements 
of the Gospel. He roundly charges them with covetous- 
ness. Montanus himself, he tells us, appointed Trpa/crrjpay 
XpTjudTcov, agents for the collection of money, 1 and out of 
the fund raised by them he actually paid salaries to the 
teachers who propagated his doctrine. Moreover, he 
devised a system of receiving gifts under the name of 
offerings . Accordingly the prophets took gifts, 2 and 
both prophets and martyrs made gain not only from the 
rich, but from the poor and orphans and widows. Prophets 
and prophetesses and martyrs, unmindful of the saying of 
our Lord. Ye shall not take gold or silver or two coats, 
accepted offerings not only of gold and silver, but also 
of costly garments. 3 Themiso, a leader of the sect, who 
claimed to be a martyr , or as we should say, a confessor , 
was rich enough to purchase his liberation from prison 
with a large sum of money (nXr/Get. \prfp.dT&)v). Themiso 
was, in fact, clothed with covetousness as with a garment. 4 
Another, who was counted as a prophet, was a money 
lender. And, finally, Apollonius asks the scornful ques 
tions, Does a prophet dye his hair ? Does a prophet 
paint himself? Does a prophet delight in self-adornment ? 
Does a prophet play with tables and dice ? Does a prophet 
lend money at interest ? ; and he offers to prove that 
all these things were done by the Montanist prophets. 5 

In some of these statements and insinuations those, 
namely, which relate to the financial organization of the 
sect Apollonius is confirmed by the Anonymous. For 
when he calls Theodotus the first steward of the new 
prophecy (rbv irp&rov rfjs . . . Trpo^rjrda^ olov knirpOTrov 
TIVOL 6 ) I do not see why we may not take his words in 

1 Eus. H. E. v. 18. 2. 2 Ib. 11. 3 4, 7. 4 5. 

5 11. G Ap. Eus. H. E. v. 16. 14. 


their literal sense. And indeed the very innocency of 
some of the things laid to the charge of Montaiius is a 
strong guarantee that the accusations are true. For who 
nowadays would find fault with a man who provided 
preachers with salaries, or who organized the collection 
of money for the purpose ? And we shall not greatly 
blame prophets and confessors for taking the gifts which 
were offered to them, nor be greatly surprised if the more 
eminent and popular leaders became rich. There is really 
no need for Bonwetsch s suggestion that what Montanus 
aimed at was the establishment of a community of 
goods. 1 The statements about salaries and the wealth 
of certain individuals are quite inconsistent with such a 

"What scandalized Apollonius was perhaps the fact that 
Montanus was making the clerical and even the prophetic 
office into a profession. 2 His preachers no longer worked 
at secular trades, as, in all probability, most bishops and 
priests at that period did : they derived their income 
solely from the payment made to them for the exercise 
of spiritual functions. One who is not a member of an 
established Church may perhaps be allowed to express 
sympathy with him if he also felt that absorption in 
financial organization is not conducive to the highest 
spiritual interests of Church or sect. 

We may take it, at any rate, that Montanus desired that 

1 p. 165. 

2 We are reminded of the indignation of a western writer con 
temporary with Apollonius the author of the Little Labyrinth called 
forth by the conduct of one Natalius, who, at the instance of 
Asclepiodotus and a banker named Theodotus, permitted himself to 
be called bishop of this heresy [sc. the Theodotians] at a salary, so 
that he received 150 denarii a month . He remarks, quite after the 
manner of Apollonius. that Natalius was ensnared by the desire of 
filthy lucre (al<rxpOKp8ia). H. E. v. 28. 8 ff. 


the officials of his sect should live, not indeed in luxury, 
but in ordinary comfort. 

The remainder of Apollonius s charges Bonwetsch l asks 
us to disbelieve, on the ground that Socrates (iv. 28) bears 
testimony to lack of zeal among the Paphlagonians and 
Phrygians of his day for the hippodrome and the theatre. 
The argument is scarcely convincing. He further reminds 
us, indeed, of Jerome s statement that in the lost work 
De Ecstasi Tertullian exposed the falsity of all Apollonius s 
assertions. 2 But even if we are bound to interpret rigor 
ously the words of Jerome, we must still remark that an 
Asian writer is more likely to have known the facts than 
one who lived in Africa, and that if the probable prejudice 
of Apollonius is to be taken into account, the prejudice 
of Tertullian must not be left out of consideration. The 
explanation devised by Bonwetsch, for the benefit of those 
who are not disposed utterly to reject the witness of 
Apollonius that the Montanists, in order to express their 
spiritual joy as Christians, indulged in an apparent 
worldliness which as the symbol of mere earthly merri 
ment would not have been permitted ; and that the gay 
clothing of the prophetess served only to enhance her 
dignity, and to enforce the festive character of her utter 
ances need not detain us. 

I am willing to grant that the statements of Apollonius 
are exaggerated. But is it possible that such charges 
could have been publicly made in Asia, and have been 
accompanied by an express challenge to the Montanists to 
disprove them, if they had not considerable foundation in 
fact ? Could they have been made at all by him against 
the leaders of a numerous Asian community, of which 

1 p. 100. 

2 De Vir. III. 40 septimum [volumen] proprie adversum Apollonium 
elaboravit in quo omnia quae ille arguit conatur defenders. 


asceticism was one of the most prominent characteristics ? 
And would Tertullian have answered them if they were so 
contrary to the truth that no one could have believed 
them ? 

But Apollonius makes two statements about Montanus 
which may seem to imply that he inculcated an asceticism 
which exceeded that of the Catholic Church. This, he 
says, * is he who taught dissolutions of marriages, and 
made laws of fasting (6 SiSdgas Xvo-tis yapobv, 6 vrjo-retas 
vo/jLoOeTrjcras). 1 It is scarcely probable, indeed, considering 
the context in which this sentence occurs, that it was in 
tended to convey the idea of special austerity on the part 
of Montanus. For it is immediately followed by accusa 
tions of extortion and gluttony. But let us examine the 
statements in their order. 

1. Montanus taught { dissolutions of marriages . It is 
quite certain that in the East as in the West, Montanism 
was so far ascetic as absolutely to reject second marriages 
(Epiph. Haer. 48. 8, 9; 2 Tert. De Monog. 3, &c.). But 
this can hardly be referred to here. The words \va-e L$ 
yd/lav have sometimes been rendered { dissolution of 
marriage , a phrase which suggests that Montanus was so 

1 Eus. H. E. v. 18. 2. 

2 Epiphanius evidently bases this part of his account of Montanism 
on a very early document. Bonwetsch (p. 36) argues, not altogether 
convincingly, that it was a treatise of Hippolytus. Its date seems to 
be earlier than the work of Apollonius, for the writer still asserts ( 2) 
that there have been no prophets since the death of Maximilla, a state 
ment which in the time of Apollonius would have been untrue. To 
connect it with Phrygia we have the statement ( 11) : Immediately 
after Montanus had said this viz. an oracle which he had quoted 
[ God] gave us a suggestion to remember the words of the Lord , 

&C. (ore yap evdvs TOVTO eure Movravos vnovoiav Tjp.1^ Sfd&Kev avapvr](rdr)vai 
KT\.). This seems to imply that the writer had actually heard 
Montanus. Moreover, several of his arguments resemble those of the 


strenuous an advocate of virginity as to lay it down that 
married couples 011 their acceptance of the new prophecy 
were bound to separate for the purpose of living in strict 
continence. And it is true that there is an oracle of 
Priscilla, which Tertullian quotes and understands as a 
commendation of chastity. 1 We only know it in Tertul- 
lian s Latin rendering, which is not free from ambiguity. 
But it certainly does not enjoin the annulling of marriages 
already contracted. And if Apollonius had wished to in 
dicate the sanction by Montanus of such an annulling in 
all cases, would he not have used the singular, \VCTLV ? At 
any rate his language is easily explained as a rhetorical 
allusion to the fact, for which a somewhat later passage in 
his treatise 2 is our sole authority, that Maximilla and 
Priscilla (and probably other women also) deserted their 
husbands when they became prophetesses. Montanus 
must of course have sanctioned their conduct : he could 
not well have done otherwise, if it was his wish that 
prophetesses as well as preachers should give undivided 
attention to their spiritual work. But abandonment of 
married life under such circumstances does not necessarily 
imply an ascetic view of the relation between the sexes. 
It is true that it seems to be implied by Apollonius that 
the Montanists recognized an order of virgins. For after 
asserting that the prophetesses had left their husbands to 
join Montanus, he adds, How then did they speak false 
hood, calling Priscilla a virgin ? But the existence of 
such an order did not strike the anti-Montanist writer as 
unfitting : what he counted outrageous was not the ascetic 
tendency of his opponents, but their laxity in giving one 
the rank of a virgin who had been married. So far as 
these indications go it would seem that the Montanists were 

1 De Exhort. Cast. 10. 2 Eus. H. E. v. 18. 3. 


less ascetic in their opinions about marriage than the 

2. But then Montanus made laws for fasting . Does 
not this imply an unusually rigorous asceticism ? Tertul- 
lian in his De leiuniis contrasts the Montanist fasts with 
those of the Catholics, and actually accuses the latter of 
gluttony because their fasts were less frequent and less 
severe. But how much meaning there is likely to be in 
such rhetoric may be judged when we find Apollonius 
making the same accusation against the Montanists 
because they had salaried preachers. The truth is that 
when we fix our thoughts on the facts which Tertullian 
mentions and not on the rhetoric beneath which they are 
buried, we perceive that the difference between him and 
the Catholics concerned far less the frequency and dura 
tion of fasts 1 than the principle on which they rested. 
The Catholics held that, with certain exceptions, they were 
ex arbitrio ; Tertullian held that they were ex imperio 
novae disciplinae . 2 And similarly in Epiph. Haer. 48. 8, 
where apparently Montanists and Gnostics are classed 
together, there is no allusion to difference in the 
amount of fasting, but only to difference in the principle 
which lies behind it. 3 And nothing more is implied in 
the words 6 vrjarcias vofjLoOerrjo-as. In Phrygia as in Africa 

1 Boirwetsch (p. 96) scarcely succeeds in proving that in these 
respects the Montanists (in Africa) differed to any considerable extent 
from the Catholics. He shows (p. 95) that Jerome exaggerated the 
number of fasts peculiar to the Montanists. 

2 De leiun. 2, 13. Cp. Gwatkin, Early Church History, ii. 81. 

3 JlaCXos- . . . 7rpo(prjTev(t)v eXc-ye . . . on aTrooT^a ovrai Ttves rfjS vyiat- 
youcr^sSiSacTKaXiay, npoaf^ovres nXdvois KOI SiSatr/caXiaiy 8aip.6i(ov, KwXvovTwv 
ya.iJ.eiv, direxfffdat /3pa)/iarcoi/* ... cos (racpooy 6<p Kol TOIS ojxoiois tijjuv 

egavr&v rail/ TrpoKip.V6>v. at yap TrXciovs rail/ cupeVecoj/ rotircoi/ro 

rrpoTp7r6p.evot, ou^ eveKcv aper/jy p.dovos KOI /3pa/3ei a>f Kat arct^ai/aw, aXXa 
vno Xptorou yfyefrj^ev 



fasting was reduced to rule, no doubt by command of the 
Paraclete. But we have no proof that the rules enforced 
in the two regions were identical. And even if they were 
it does not follow that in either the fasts were increased 
in number or in severity. That would depend oil the 
frequency and rigour of fasting in the already existing 
usage of Catholic Christians. The Montaiiist rule in 
Phrygia may even, in this matter, have fallen below the 
standard of Phrygian Catholic custom. It is at least 
remarkable that when Sozomen enumerates the local 
differences as to the duration of Lent, the shortest Lent 
which he mentions is that of those who minded the things 
of Montanus , and who kept but two weeks. 1 

The remark about marriage and fasting therefore leaves 
unimpaired the impression produced by the charges of 
greed and worldliness brought by Apollonius against the 
Montanists. We cannot regard those whom he had in 
view as an ascetic community. 

Not unconnected, in the mind of Tertullian, with the 
question of asceticism, was the eagerness for martyrdom 
to which as a Montanist he urged his readers. It is 
necessary therefore to inquire what we can learn as to the 
attitude towards martyrdom of the Phrygian Montanists. 

Tertullian quotes oracles of the prophets in favour of 
his view that Christians should seek rather than evade 
martyrdom ; 2 but they are not appreciably stronger than 
words spoken by our Lord, upon which at least one of 
them is plainly founded. Both alike are patient of 
different interpretations by different men. What then was 
the actual practice of the Montanists of Phrygia ? Did 
they court martyrdom or did they avoid it ? The answer 
must be, I think, if we are to be guided by the available 

1 Soz. H.E. vii. 19. 

2 De Fuga, 9 : cp. c. 11 ; De Cor. 1 ; De An. 55. 


evidence, that they behaved much in the same way as 
Catholic Christians did under similar circumstances. 

A passage of the Anonymous has been interpreted to 
mean that the Montanists had no martyrs. Is there any, 
he asks, 1 of those who began to speak, from Montanus and 
the women on, who was persecuted by Jews or slain by 
lawless men ? And he answers, * Not one. It is instruc 
tive to observe the use which has been made of these words, 
and some others like them which follow. Mr. M c Giffert, 
in the notes to his English translation of Eusebius, 2 affirms 
that * there is a flat contradiction between them and a 
subsequent passage of the same writer, in which he admits 
that the Montanists had many martyrs ; and he infers that 
the Anonymous had no regard whatever for the truth . 
He adds that we know that the Montanists had many 
martyrs, and that their principles were such as to lead 
them to martyrdom even when the Catholics avoided it , 
referring to Tertullian s De Fuga. In the latter remark 
he assumes that African and Phrygian Montanism were 
identical in principle. And all that precedes it is based 
on a misinterpretation of the Anonymous. 

For that writer is answering the argument based on 
Matt, xxiii. 34, I send unto you prophets and wise men 
and scribes ; some of them ye shall kill and crucify that 
because the Catholics had not received Montanus and his 
companions they were slayers of the prophets. Any one 
who reads the whole passage with attention will perceive 
that his answer amounts to this : The text must be taken 
literally ; and in its literal sense it has not been fulfilled 
in the Montanist prophets. None of them has been put 
to death by any one, still less by the Jews, to whom 
Christ was speaking. Montanus and Maximilla and 
Theodotus were all dead, but not one of them had died as a 
1 Ap. Eus. H. E. v. 16. 12. 2 p. 232 f. 

K 2 


martyr. The Anonymous makes no reference to the 
general body of Montanists. He neither denies nor 
affirms that they had martyrs. Hence his words cannot 
contradict the later passage in which he allows that the 
sect had numerous martyrs. 

But it is not without significance that, if we may believe 
him and I see no reason why we should not none of 
the early Phrygian prophets had suffered for the faith. 
Is it likely, if they preached, with the vigour of a Ter- 
tullian, that the glory of martyrdom should be eagerly 
sought, that all of them should have passed through the 
persecution of Marcus Aurelius unscathed ? 

But let us proceed to consider the second passage of 
the Anonymous to which Mr. M c Giffert refers. In it he 
tells us that when all other argument failed them the 
Montanists fell back on their martyrs. And he admits 
the truth of their contention that their martyrs were 
many in number. 1 

What was the argument based on this fact? The 
Anonymous only says that they regarded it as * a proof 
of the power of the prophetic Spirit that was among 
them . "We may perhaps guess that what they meant 
was something of this kind. The Anonymous plainly 
refers to the persecution of Marcus Aurelius ; for after it, 
according to him, the Church had enjoyed continuous 
peace up to the time when he wrote. 2 Now the martyrs 
of Lyons had during that persecution testified by their 
letters in favour of the Catholic party in Phrygia. 3 
Their judgement would have had great weight with all 
Christendom. Just in the same way we cannot doubt 
that the arguments of Praxeas against the Montanists 
were the more readily listened to by the bishop of Rome 

1 Ap. Eus. H. E. v. 16. 20 f. 2 Ib. 19. 

3 Eus. H. E. v. 3. 4. 


because of his martyrdom of which he made such proud 
boasting, and the reality of which Tertullian so eagerly 
disputed. 1 By way of reply the Montanists may have 
appealed to their own martyrs : We too had then many 
martyrs who testified on our behalf. 

But, however that may be, the Anonymous gives us no 
reason to suppose that there was any balancing of one 
set of martyrs against another in regard either to their 
number or their eagerness and steadfastness. As yet we 
have nothing to guide us to a sure judgement about the 
attitude of the Phrygian Montanists towards martyrdom. 

We turn to the treatise of Apollonius. Here at length 
we find a hint. Apollonius tells us that Themiso pur 
chased his liberation from bonds with a large sum of 
money, and thereafter boasted as a martyr. 2 This state 
ment may of course be false ; but it is not proved to be 
false because Tertullian in his De Fuga denounced the 
practice of purchasing release. 3 And it is worthy of re 
mark that in this case it is not a Montanist but a Catholic 
who says that Themiso s act of cowardice ought to have 
humbled him. Moreover, the statement (whether true or 
false) would hardly have been made if it had admitted of 
an easy retort. So far as it goes it indicates that in 
Phrygia the Montanists were more inclined to avoid 
martyrdom than the Catholics. 

This is confirmed by a document of later date. Under 
Decius one Achatius, apparently a bishop, whose see, 
however, is unknown, 4 was examined by a governor 
named Martianus. The record of the examination was 
printed by Ruinart, 5 and has many marks of genuine- 

1 Adv. Prax. 1. 2 Ap Eus. H. E. v. 18. 5. 

3 Bonwetsch, p. 163. 

4 See B. Aube, Les Chretiens dans V Empire Eomain, iv. 181 f. 

5 Acta sincera, ed. Amsterdam, 1713, p. 152. See also Gebhardt, 
Ada Martyrum Selecta, 1902, p. 115. 


ness. In it the governor is represented as urging Achatius 
to sacrifice by an appeal to the example of the Cataphry- 
gians, homines religionis antiquae, who had in a body 
abandoned Christianity and made their offerings to the 
gods. This address cannot have been put into the mouth 
of Martianus by an orthodox writer. For such a one 
would not have made him speak of the Montanists as 
men of an ancient religion ; and still less would he have 
made him immediately afterwards contrast their faith 
with the nouum genus religionis of their Catholic 
rivals. The governor is struck by the difference between 
the faint-hear tedness of the Montanists and the courage 
of the Catholics. 

Another indication of the position taken by the eastern 
Montanists in the matter of martyrdom remains to be 
noticed. The sect which was commonly known as the 
heresy of the Phrygians must have included among its 
members a large number perhaps the majority of the 
Christians of Phrygia. And we have direct testimony 
that this was so even as late as the fifth century. 1 But 
Sir William Ramsay 2 points out that in Phrygia as a 
whole martyrdoms in the latter part of the second century, 
and throughout the third, were rare. From a study of the 
inscriptions he is able to suggest a reason for this fact. 
The Christians lived on good terms with their heathen 
fellow-countrymen, and did not obtrude their Chris 
tianity unnecessarily ; and, speaking generally, a spirit of 
compromise and accommodation in matters religious pre 
vailed. If this description is at all near the truth the 
attitude of the Phrygian Christians towards paganism 
and towards persecution must have been as different as 

1 Soz. H. E. ii. 32. 

2 Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, ii (1897), chaps, xii, xvii, esp. 
p. 501. 


possible from that which is enforced in Tertullian s Mon- 
tanist treatises, and, for that matter, in many other 
writings which have never been suspected of Montanist 
leanings. So far from courting persecution the Phrygian 
Christians sought to avoid it, and succeeded. If the 
Montanists had not been in this point in agreement with 
the Catholics such a result would have been impossible. 

But this paper must be brought to a close. Professor 
Harnack, following many other writers, has said that 
what is called Montanism was a reaction against secu 
larism in the Church *. 1 The considerations which I have 
now adduced seem to me to prove that, if this be true, 
Montanism, in the place of its birth, must have departed 
from its original standpoint far more rapidly than the 
Montanism which, in the last years of the second century, 
established itself at Carthage, and is represented, for us, 
by Tertullian. 

1 Encycl. Brit.^ xvi. 777. The statement has been modified in the 
eleventh edition, 1911, xviii. 759. 


AN important section of RusGbius s Ecclesiastical History 
is based upon documents which he had himself gathered 
the letters of Origen, of which he possessed over a 
hundred. These, he tells us, he procured from various 
quarters and bound in volumes. 1 The volumes of Origen s 
letters in Eusebius s library remind us of the countless 
volumes of pamphlets, so interesting to the historian, 
which find a home in our great modern collections. It 
may very well be that they were but specimens of many 
similar volumes of the minor writings of early authors, 
stored in the two libraries which supplied him with 
materials for his work, those of Pamphilus at Caesarea, 2 
and of Alexander at Jerusalem. 3 It may not be without 
instruction to search through his History for evidence 
of the use of such volumes of tracts. 

1. H. E. iv. 15. We may begin with an instance which 
will scarcely be disputed. It was a volume of Acts of 
Martyrs, and contained the following : (1) The Epistle of 
the Smyrnaeans on the Martyrdom of Polycarp ; (2) The 
Acts of Metrodorus and Pionius ; (3) The Acts of Carpus, 
Papylus, and Agathonice. That these were all bound in 
a single volume (ypacfrij), and that Eusebius refers to them 
in the order in which they occurred in it, is evident from 

1 H- E. VI. 36. 3 o>v oTTOcras (mofjaSrjv jrapa 8ia(p6pois <ra>6fi(ras crvvaya- 
yelv dfdvvrjfjLfda, ev Idiais rop-wv TTfpiypafpais, a>s av /n^Ke ri diappinroivTO, 
KareXeajuei>, rov eKarbv apiO^ov vTrepftaivovffas. 

2 H. E. vi. 32. 3. 3 H. E. vi. 20. 1. 


his own words. After paraphrasing the first seven chapters 
of the Letter of the Smyrnaeans and quoting nearly the 
whole of the remainder, he proceeds : l In the same 
volume about him other martyrdoms also were attached . . . 
with whom also Metrodorus . . . was delivered up to death 
by fire. Among those who lived at that time a famous 
martyr, one Pionius, flourished, whose . . . confessions . . . 
the writing about him contains in very full detail . . . And 
after [this] there are extant also memoirs of others . . . 
who were martyred, Carpus and Papylus and the woman 
Agathonice. Here then we recognize one volume which 
lay before the historian as he wrote ; and it is important 
to observe his method of dealing with it. In the course of 
his narrative he has touched upon most of the prominent 
ecclesiastics who flourished under Antoninus Pius. Before 
passing on to the times of Marcus Aurelius he extracts 
a passage from Irenaeus giving an account of Polycarp. 2 
Then, having recorded the accession of Aurelius, 3 he goes 
on to describe Polycarp s martyrdom, which, according to 
his chronology, took place in this reign. For an account 
of this event he has recourse to the volume which we are 
now considering. Its first treatise suffices for his imme 
diate purpose ; but having opened the book he does not 
again close it till he has given a list of the remaining 
tracts included in it. The Acts of Pionius had for him 
a special interest, 4 and he is therefore not content with 
merely mentioning it, but adds a summary of its contents. 

1 46-48 *Ev rfj avrfi de rrepl avrov ypa(f)fj KOI ciXXa fiaprvpta trvv- 
77777-0 . . . p.t6 <i/ KCU MrjTpodapos . . . nvpl napndodels dvijprjrai. TCOV ye 
fj.rjv Tore Trepi/Soqros pdprvs els TIS eyvwpifaro Ilidvios . . . et-rjs dt KOI aXAoov 
. . . vrronvrjuaTa fie^aprupr/KoTeoi/ (peperai, KapTrov Kal HcnrvXov, Kal 
yvvaiKos AyafloviKrjs. 

2 H. E. iv. 14. 

3 Ib. 10. 

4 He included them in his Book of Martyrdoms, H. E. iv. 15. 47. 


This order of proceeding is similar, as we shall see, to that 
which he adopts in other cases. 

The other volumes of tracts, as we suspect them to be, 
used by Eusebius, may be noticed in the order in which 
they are alluded to in the History. 

2-6. H.E. ii. 18. Writings of Philo. In this chapter 
Eusebius gives a list, which is probably complete, of the 
works of Philo Judaeus which were known to him. He 
first mentions 1 his two great treatises on the Pentateuch, 
the Legum Allegoriae and the Quaestiones et Solutiones, 
or, to speak more accurately, of those parts of them which 
still bore these titles and related to the books of Genesis 
and Exodus. "With the volumes which contained the 
greater part of these we have no concern. We have to 
consider the catalogue of shorter tracts which follows. 

It begins 2 with the remark, There are besides these 
separate dissertations by him on certain questions, after 
which thirteen treatises are named, and this section of 
the catalogue closes with the words, These are such of 
his works on Genesis as have come down to us. 3 Now 
of the thirteen treatises, if we may accept the conclusions 
of modern scholars, 4 no less than eleven really belonged 
to the Legum Allegoriae from which Eusebius dis 
tinguishes them. Their connexion with that work had 
already been forgotten. That in giving their titles 
Eusebius is in fact merely transcribing them in the order 
in which they occurred in a volume or volumes into 
which they had been brought together is made tolerably 

1 1. In this discussion I have made much use of Schurer, A His 
tory of the Jewish People in the Time of Christ, Div. ii, vol. iii, 34. 1, 
E. T. 1894, pp. 321-361. 

2 2 can S* aura) Tropa TaCra 7rpoft\rjp.dT<oi> TIV&V I8i(os 

3 4 /cat TaCra pet> ra fls fjfJLas e\6oi>ra TWV els rrjv yevc<riv. 

4 Schurer ? pp. 331, 334. 


plain when we consider the following facts. Their true 
order, as parts of the Allegoriae, would have been that of 
the sections of the Book of Genesis with which they 
severally deal. But that is not at all the order in which 
Eusebius names them. The first four, indeed, De agricul- 
tura, De ebrietate, De sobrietate, and De confusione 
linguarum, 1 treat in succession of Gen.ix. 20, 21, 24, xi. 
1 ff. ; but then come seven in an order entirely arbitrary, 
De profugis 2 on Gen. xvi. 6 ff., De congressu quaerendae 
eruditionis causa 3 on Gen. xvi. 1 ff., Quis rerum divinarum 
haeres sit* on Gen. xv. Iff, De mutatione nominum 5 on 
Gen. xvii. 1 f.,De migratione Abrahami 6 on Gen. xii. 1 ff, 
De gigantibus 7 on Gen. vi. 1 ff , and De somniis 8 on Gen. 
(xx. 3), xxviii. 12 ff, xxxi. 11 ff, xxxvii, xl. 41, &c. Again, 
among these are inserted two tracts from an entirely 
different group of Philo s writings, 9 De fortitudine, &c., 10 
and De Abrahamo. 11 The former of these has indeed no 
claim to be included in this list. It is not a dissertation 
on the Book of Genesis, and it is part of an appendix to 
the work De specialibus legibus 12 mentioned lower down in 
the chapter. 13 It is not the only tract whose right to stand 
here may be called in question. For though the two ex 
tant books (apparently the second and third) 14 of the De 
somniis discuss dreams recorded in Genesis, the fourth 
and fifth, which were in Eusebius s copy, must have 
travelled beyond its limits. And finally, though Eusebius 
gives us to understand that this list includes all the works 
of Philo on Genesis that he knew, he subsequently 

1 Mangey, i. 300-435. 2 Ib. 546-577. 

3 Ib. 519-545. 4 Ib. 473-518. 5 Ib. 578-619. 

6 Ib. 436-472. 7 Ib. 262-299. 8 Ib. 620-699. 

9 Schiirer, pp. 338 ff. 10 Mangey, ii. 375-407. ll Ib. 1-40. 

12 Ib. 210 358. See Schiirer, pp. 343 ff. 13 5. 

14 Schiirer, p. 337. 


mentions another which is based on passages of that book, 
his De losepho. 1 

It is obvious to suggest, as an explanation of all 
this confusion, that the list which we have been consider 
ing is merely an enumeration of the tracts contained in 
one or more volumes which bore some such title as 
Treatises of Philo on Genesis , while the tracts mentioned 
later on were preserved in volumes whose titles did not 
indicate that they treated of that book. Now it is mani 
festly improbable that so many tracts should have been 
included in a single manuscript volume. If printed, those 
which have been mentioned would fill about 650 pages 
of Mangey s edition. "We are led, therefore, to inquire 
whether there is any evidence for their division among 
several volumes. And a scrutiny of the text of our list 
proves that such evidence is at hand. Eusebius divides 
the tracts into groups : Apart from these belong to him 
separate dissertations on certain questions, such as the 
two books De agricultura . . . and yet again the tract 
Concerning the three virtues which, with others, Moses 
described. In addition to these the De mutatione nomi- 
num . . . and yet again De gigantibus? &c. 2 Does each of 
the four groups marked out by these phrases apart from 
these , * and yet again , in addition to these , and yet 
again , correspond to a distinct volume ? This is not 
likely, for in that case the volumes would have been of 
very unequal size. Indeed, the second of them would 
have had only one tract of somewhat less than the average 
length, that on The three virtues. But let us suppose 
that the words and yet again do not imply a passing 
from one volume to another. The list is then broken up 
into two groups, and it turns out that they would 

1 6. See Schurer, p. 342. 

2 2-4 earn d avrco rrapa ravra . . . KOI en . . TTposrovrois . . . KOI en. 


represent volumes of very nearly the same bulk. The 
first eight treatises occupy 274 pages of Mangey s edition, 
to which we must add about 35 pages for the first book 
of the De ebrietate, now lost. 1 The next five, introduced 
by the words in addition to these , take up 237 pages of 
Mangey, to which 105 pages are to be added for the three 
missing books of the De somniis. Thus our total is in 
one case 310, in the other 340, pages of Mangey volumes, 
it is true, of large, but not of impossible size. 

"We pass to the next section, 2 which gives a list of the 
writings on Exodus. This includes five books of the 
Quaestiones et Solutiones, and some other tracts which 
seem to be identical with part of the Vita Mosisf the De 
specialism legibus* and the De praemiis et poenis* 
There is considerable difficulty in determining the size of 
the treatises which compose this group because only two 
of the five books of the Quaestiones et Solutiones are now 
extant, 6 because we cannot be sure how much of the Vita 
Mosis is included, because Eusebius reckons as a distinct 
treatise in this group the De victimis, 7 which in extant 
manuscripts is reckoned as part of the De specialibus 
legibus, and because the latter work as we have it is 
imperfect. 8 However, the group seems to have contained 
about as much as 300 or 400 of Mangey s pages. Thus it 
would have filled a volume of about the same size as one of 
those which contained the works on Genesis. 

After enumerating the treatises on Exodus Eusebius 

1 Schiirer, p. 335. 2 5. 

3 Mangey, ii. 80-179. Eusebius calls it rrepl T^S (TK^S : see Schiirer, 

p. 348. 

* Mangey, ii. 210-358. See Schurer, pp. 343 ff. 

5 Mangey, it. 408-437. 

6 Schurer, p. 328. 

7 Mangey, ii. 237-250. See Schurer, p. 344, n. 46. 

8 Schurer, p. 343. 


proceeds to describe another group. 1 In addition to all 
these/ he says, there are also extant works of his, each 
containing but one book ; and he names four, De provi- 
dentia, De ludaeis* De losepho? and De Alexandra . 4 
The opening words in addition to all these seem as 
before to indicate a fresh volume. And indeed it is 
difficult to understand why Eusebius treated these tracts 
as a separate group unless it was because they were bound 
together. Their subjects are various, and one of them, as 
we have seen, might have been included in the Genesis 
list. Their only bond of union is their size ; and in that 
they are not exceptional, for in this chapter many other 
treatises are included which consisted of a single book. 

"We are next introduced to a group, consisting of what 
Eusebius reckons as four tracts, of which three seem 
beyond doubt to have stood together in a volume. 5 

Besides these the tract On every evil man being 
in bondage, following which is the Quod omnis probus 
liber. G And after these have been set (or composed) by 
him the De Vita contemplativa or Concerning Suppliants? 
. . . and the Interpretations of the Hebrew names in the 
Law and the Prophets are said to be his work. 

The words following which (< efjs) of themselves 
suggest that the second of these tracts succeeded the first 
in a volume ; and that this was the case is made certain 
when we add that they are known to have been actually 

1 6 irpbs TOVTOIS aniiaL Km /Movo/3i/3Xa avroO 

2 Schurer, pp. 354, 356. 

3 Mangey, ii. 41-79. 4 Schurer, p. 355. 

5 6 erri TovTois 6 TTfp\ TOV 8ov\ov elvni navra (pavXov, ta f^ijs ecrriv 6 
Tre/Ji TOV iravTa (nrovdalov (\evdf pov (IvaC 7. /ne$ ovs (rwreraKrai avrco o 

TTfpl /3lOU 6eO)pr)TlKOV 77 LKfTtoVj f OV TO. TTtpl TOV /3lOU Tti>V aTTOOTToXlKOaV 

av8pS)v 8i(\r)\v6afJi.v , Kal rS>v ei> vofiw fie /cat jrpocfrrjTais EftpaiKtoV ovopdrav 
at (pnyvclai TOV CIVTOV (rnovdrj flvai Xey^wat. 

6 Mangey, ii. 445-470. 7 Mangey, ii. 471-486. 


the first and second parts of a single work. 1 The statement 
about the De vita comtemplativa might have been taken 
to mean that it was written by Philo after the others, 
were it possible to conceive that Eusebius had any 
evidence of such a fact. There is certainly none in the 
second and third tracts themselves if in their present form 
they are complete. 2 If the words are understood as con 
veying the information that the third followed the second 
according to their author s arrangement, they give us 
good reason for thinking that they were so placed in 
Eusebius s manuscript. But it may appear later on that 
Eusebius would have had little hesitation in concluding 
that one treatise was later than another from the mere fact 
that it came after it in a volume which included both. 

There is no direct intimation in the text that the treatise 
which is next referred to, the Interpretatio Hebraicorum 
nominum, was found by Eusebius in the same volume as 
the other three. But the assumption is very natural. 
By themselves the three would have made a very small 
volume ; and the Interpretatio is mentioned in close 
connexion with them. Moreover, we seem to have no 
choice between supposing that it was bound with them 
and holding that it was in a volume by itself. For the 
only work mentioned after it, that which Eusebius here 
calls Trtpi dpTa>v, occupies in its present form over eighty 
pages of Mangey s edition, 3 and originally it must have 
been more than twice as long. 4 So large a work would 
scarcely have been bound with another which had no 
relation to it. Moreover, the hypothesis that the Ono- 
masticon was contained in a volume with one or more 

1 Sehurer, p. 349. It should be added, however, that the word egqs 
does not necessarily indicate immediate sequence. See H. E. i. 2. 25 ; 
3. 6 ; ii. 7. 6 ; 17. 9 ; 21. 1 ; iii. 36. 14 ; v. 1. 4, 62, &c. 

2 The first is lost. 3 ii. 517-600. * Schiirer, pp. 350 if. 


works of Philo serves to explain certain facts which are 
somewhat difficult to understand otherwise. In Eusebius s 
copy the work was plainly anonymous. Jerome had seen 
several copies of it, and apparently none of them gave the 
name of the author. Origen also seems to refer to it as 
anonymous. 1 Yet both Eusebius and Jerome ascribe it 
to Philo, and the latter does so on the authority of 
Origen. How is this to be accounted for ? If the treatise 
was bound up with other works which bore the name of 
Philo in the manuscript which Eusebius used, the inference 
would have been natural enough that it came from Philo s 
pen. And Eusebius may have been guided to it by a 
marginal note in the manuscript. 2 Now it is quite 
probable that the copies of Philo known to Eusebius were 
in Origen s library at Caesarea. If Jerome had seen the 
volume he might have drawn from it the same inference 
as Eusebius, and, with less caution, he might have supposed 
that it had the sanction of the famous scholar who had 
made the collection. 

I conclude then that the Hebrew Onomasticon was the 
last tract in a volume. But did the three which precede 
it in Eusebius s list constitute with it a separate volume ? 
If they did, it would seem to have been much smaller 
than some of the others which are referred to in this 
chapter. And the same remark applies to the group of 
four short treatises previously discussed. For this reason 
I am inclined to suppose that the two sets of tracts were 
bound together. The words besides these (em TOVTOLS) 3 
which introduce the description of the group favour the 

1 The passages of Origen and Jerome are quoted by Schiirer, 
p. 360 f. 

2 Compare for a somewhat similar case, Photius, BiU. 48, discussed 
by Lightfoot, Clement, ii. 378 ff. 

3 Not irpos TOVTOIS, a phrase which elsewhere in the chapter indi 
cates the beginning of a volume. Cp. above, p. 26. 


hypothesis. But the evidence is far from being decisive ; 
and I therefore count the two groups as corresponding to 
two volumes. 

If the obscure hints of Eusebius have been rightly 
interpreted we find, then, that for his knowledge of the 
minor writings of Philo he depended on these five volumes, 
probably preserved in Origen s library : 

(1) A volume of eight tracts described as being on the 
Book of Genesis. 

(2) A volume of five tracts with a similar title. 

(3) A volume containing five books of the Quaestiones et 
Solutiones, together with four tracts on Exodus. 

(4) A small volume containing four short tracts. 

(5) A small volume containing the two parts of a 
treatise by Philo, with separate titles, and two others of 
which the second was anonymous. 

7. H. E. iv. 11-13; 16-18. Works of Justin Martyr. 
This volume contained the following : (1) The treatise 
(or treatises) Adv. Graecos ; (2) Apol. i ; (3) The Epistle of 
Marcus Aurelius addressed to the Commune Asiae ; (4) 
Apol. ii. Let it first be remarked that if we are right in 
supposing that these tracts were collected in one volume 
the procedure of Eusebius with regard to Justin is similar 
to that which he followed in the case of Polycarp. He 
mentions two prominent writers of the time of Pope 
Anicetus, Hegesippus and Justin, and cites a passage from 
each which fixes his date. 1 For the latter writer the 
passage is taken from the first Apology. The volume 
containing it is open, and therefore, having made his 
extract, Eusebius proceeds to give an account of its 
contents. He names (1) and (2), from the latter of which 
he makes a further extract ; he transcribes (3), which he 
ascribes to Antoninus Pius. Having got so far, his 
1 H.E.iv. 11.7-9. 

1353 L 


description is interrupted, for (4) does not (as he supposes) 
belong to the reign of Pius, of which he is at the moment 
treating, but to that of his successor. Hence the account 
of Polycarp is inserted, as it were parenthetically. This 
finished, he returns to Justin in ch. 16, mentioning (4), 
and making from it a lengthy quotation. The parallelism 
of all this to his treatment of Polycarp and the others 
mentioned along with him lends a certain probability to 
our hypothesis. But it is supported by other considera 
tions. In the first place, why is Justin s work against 
the Greeks mentioned in iv. 11 ? It has no obvious 
relevance to the context ; it is not a book which had any 
special attraction for Eusebius, since he makes no extract 
from it, and gives no account of its argument ; and it is 
named again in its proper place in ch. 18, where a formal 
list is given of the writings of its author. Our answer is 
simple. It stood first in the volume which Eusebius was 
using at the time, and therefore, according to his habit, he 
named it in connexion with the other more important 
treatises with which it was bound. Again, if Eusebius 
found (2), (3), (4) succeeding one another in this order, 
his manuscript of these writings resembled the only 
known extant manuscripts which contain them. The two 
complete copies of the Apologies of Justin insert after the 
first the letter of Marcus Aurelius (followed by another 
spurious imperial epistle). 1 And lastly, our hypothesis 
partially removes a difficulty which has perplexed critics. 
Eusebius is so apparently contradictory in his references 
to Justin s Apologies that some writers have contended 
that what he names the Second Apology is a lost work, and 

1 Otto, Corpus Apologetarum, vol. i, pp. xxiff. The MSS. referred 
to are not independent of one another. The order in them is (4), 
(2), (3) ; and there is evidence that in other manuscripts the two 
Apologies were transposed. Ib., p. xxviii f. 


that our first and second Apologies were by him regarded 
as a single treatise and called the First Apology. This 
indeed appears, on any showing, very unlikely, since in 
H. E. iv. 16 he quotes from our Second Apology, and 
expressly tells us that his extract is from the second book 
on behalf of our doctrines V But what are the arguments 
on the other side? They are two in number. In iv. 8. 5, 
after quoting from the First Apology, he introduces an 
extract from the second with the words kv TOLVT^ . . . ravra 
ypa^ei, which have been rendered, In the same work, &c. 
But there seems to be no need to translate the phrase in 
this way. May we not understand some such word as 
/3i/3A/o) 2 after ravTO), and translate, In the same volume ? 
There remains only iv. 17. 1, where kv rfj TT pore pa airoXoyia 
is certainly intended to refer to (our) Second Apology. 
We cannot safely build a theory on such a slender founda 
tion. We may suppose that Trporepa is a slip either of 
Eusebius or of a scribe, or that it is to be taken in an 
unusual sense as equivalent to SeS^Xco^rj. 

8. H. E. iv. 23. The Epistles of Dionysius of Corinth. 
Seven Catholic Epistles are mentioned, and a letter 
addressed to a lady named Chrysophora. It has been 
remarked 3 that, in a note appended (as it seems) to the 
letter to the Romans, Dionysius complains that his 
epistles had been tampered with by heretics ; and that 
two of them are addressed to churches in Crete, and that 
these are not named consecutively ; from which facts the 
inference is drawn, that the letters had already been 
collected into a volume, and that they are enumerated by 
Eusebius in the order in which he found them there. I 

1 This is explained away, not very satisfactorily, by making the 
words Iv rrj SeS^Xco/ueX 7 ? aTToXoym in 2 refer, not to the work mentioned 
in 1, but to the First Apology, quoted in ch. 13. 

2 Cp. H. E. v. 20. 2, and below, p. 177, note \ 

3 Diet. Christ. Biog. i. 849. 



confess that, while admiring the acuteness of the argument, 
I was not at first convinced by it. But the scale is turned 
when we find it confirmed by the words of Eusebius 
himself. After describing five of the letters he introduces 
the sixth with the words ravTais d XX?? eyKaretXeKTat . . . 
eTnoToX??. 1 The verb seems naturally to imply a volume. 
Indeed a cognate word is used by Eusebius of the volumes 
in which he had arranged the letters of Origen. 2 And it is 
applied elsewhere to a treatise which Eusebius included in 
his lost book of Acts of Martyrdom. 3 If the Epistles of 
Dionysius were already gathered into a volume in the 
lifetime of their writer, it would appear that additions 
had been made to the collection before it fell into the 
hands of Eusebius. In the volume which he used the sixth 
Catholic Epistle seems to have been followed by the reply 
to it, addressed to Dionysius by Pinytus, bishop of the 
Cnossians, a paraphrased extract from which is given by 
Eusebius, 4 and at the end, after the note of Dionysius 
already referred to, came the letter to Chrysophora. 

9-12. H. E. iv. 26. WorTcs of Melito of Sardis. Of the 
works of Melito which were known to him Eusebius gives 
a long list. As in the case of the writings of Philo, dis 
cussed above, he seems to divide them into groups, which 
may very possibly represent separate volumes. The 
several groups are indicated, as before, by the connecting 
particles. Of these writers [Melito and Apollinarius] 
there have come to our knowledge those that are set out 
below. Of Melito : (1) The two books On the Pascha, and 
that On the [Christian] mode of life and the prophets, and 
[the treatise] On the Church and that On the Lord s Day ; 

1 7. 2 See above, p. 136. 

3 H. E. v. 4. 3 6 (sc. o-uyypa/Li/Lia) KOI avro rfj ra>v /zaprupcoi/ vvvayaryjj irpbs 
r)p.S>v, MS yovv e<f>r]v, KareiXfKTai. Compare iii. 24. 2 ; 38. 1. 

4 8. 


and yet again (2) that On the faith of man, and that On 
Creation, and that On obedience of the senses to faith ; and 
in addition to these (3) that On soul and body or mind, and 
that On the Laver, and On Truth, and On faith and the 
generation of Christ ; and (4) his discourse On prophecy 
and On soul and body, and that On hospitality and The 
Key, and the [books] On the Devil and the Apocalypse of 
John, and that On the Incarnate God. After all [these] also 
the booklet addressed to Antoninus. 1 The first and third 
groups apparently contain four treatises each, the second 
group three, and the last six. 2 After giving this list as a 
complete enumeration, Eusebius proceeds to quote from 
the first and last of the series, and then makes an extract 
from Melito s Selections, 3 a work not included in his list. 
The explanation which may be suggested of this discre 
pancy is of this kind. By the writings of Melito which 
had come to his knowledge, Eusebius meant those which 
lay in one of the libraries to which he had constant access. 
The extract from the Selections may have been made from 
a copy borrowed from a friend, or may have been taken 
at second hand from an earlier writer. 

13. H. E. iv. 27. Works of Apollinarius. This chapter 
is a continuation of the preceding, in which Eusebius 
undertook to give a catalogue of some of the works of 

1 2. TOVTWV els f]/j.eTepav yvS)(riv acffiKTai TO. vTroTCTayp-eva 

TO. TTfpl TOV TTCHTXa ^UO KOI TO TTfpt 7rO\lTtaS Kttl TTpO^TJT&V Kal 6 TTCpl 

fKK\i)o~I.a$ Kal 6 ?repi KvpiaKrjs \6yos } TL Se 6 ncpl TTtoTCOff dv0p<arrov Kal 6 
t rrXao-tcos 1 , /cat 6 irepl vnaKorjs TTIOTCCOS alcr6r]TT}picav KOI irpbs TOVTOII 6 
/cat (ra)/>iarof r) voos Kal 6 nepl \ovrpov Kai rrepi aXqtfei af KOI Trept 
KOI yfvf(rfo)s Xptoroi) icai \6yos avrov [rrfpi] rrpo<pr]Teias Kai Trept 
Kai (rco/iaros Kal 6 Trepl (f)i\oevia$ Kal 17 Xeip Kai ra TTfpi TOV 8iaft6Xov 
Kal TTJS aTTOKaXu^ecos 1 icoaj/i/of Kal 6 TTfpl fv<ra)p.aTov deov } eVt rrao L Kal TO 
Trpbs Avravlvov jSc^XtdtOf. 

2 But Schwartz regards Trep! XourpoO and the four following titles as 
mere chapter headings of a single work. 

3 (K\oyai. 


Melito and Apollinarius, but actually spoke only of those 
of the former. It might be expected, then, that if the list 
of Melito s works, with the exception of the Selections, was 
simply a transcript of the titles of tracts bound in volumes 
which lay under his hand, the catalogue of the writings of 
Apollinarius would be compiled by the same easy method. 
And it will be observed that Eusebius is conscious that 
his enumeration is far from complete. Out of many books 
he names only a few which he himself had seen. He 
writes : 

Many books by Apollinarius are preserved in the pos 
session of many persons, but those which have come into 
our hands are these : The discourse to the before-men 
tioned Emperor [Antoninus], and To the Greeks five books, 
and On Truth a first and second, and To the Jews a first 
and second, and those things which he wrote after these 
against the heresy of the Phrygians, which had recently 
come into existence, since it was then beginning as it 
were to shoot forth and Montanus with his false prophet 
esses was still in the act of introducing his error. * 

There is no indication here, such as we found elsewhere, 
that Eusebius, as he wrote down the titles of the books, 
was passing from one volume to another. But that the 
polemical work was in the same volume with those pre 
viously named, and followed them in it, is very probable. 
Eusebius says that Apollinarius wrote it after them . How 
did he know this ? He may have had evidence in the book 
itself sufficient to enable him to form an opinion as to its 
date. Indeed he implies as much. But it is hardly likely 
that the other treatises gave similar indications such as 

1 Tov 8e ATToXij/api ov TroXXooi Trapu TroXXoty crajop.ei/a>j/ ra els f] 
fXdovra eorii/ rade" \6yos 6 Trpos TOV 7rpoeipr]p.fvov /SaaiXea /cat Trpo? 
*E,\\T]vas (TvyypdfjLp,aTa rrevre KOI rrfpl aXrjdfins a /3 /cat Trpos 1 lovfiaiov? a /3 
Ka\ a /M6Ta raCra crvveypa^c /caret TTJS TO>V &pvycov utpeVea)?, /MCT* oi> TTO\VV 
KaivoTOfMrjdeiarjs \povov, Tore, yf p.r]V a)(nrp ef)veiv ap^o/ieViyy, en roO Movravov 
awa rats ai/TOV tyevdoTrpotprjTKriv dp^as 1 rrjs TrapeKTpOTrrjs 7roiovfj.evov. 


would warrant the assertion that they were all of earlier 
date. But let us suppose that they were included in a 
single volume in the order in which he mentions them. 
It is at least possible that he believed them to have been 
arranged chronologically, and therefore concluded that 
the last in place was also the latest in time. That Euse- 
bius had at any rate no better ground for his assertion 
than this becomes probable when we observe that his 
inference is almost certainly incorrect. For he tells us 
that Apollinarius related the story of the Legio Fulminata. 1 
It cannot be doubted that he found it in one of the 
treatises mentioned in this chapter, and most likely in 
the Apology. But the book in which the story was told 
must have been published after the year 174. And a 
work the appearance of which coincided with the begin 
ning of the Montanist movement cannot have been written 
so late. For we know that by 177 Montanism had spread 
to Rome. 2 Eusebius himself dates its rise in 172, 3 and it 
probably originated much earlier. Hence it is scarcely 
possible that the statement that the treatise against the 
Phrygians was written after the rest of Apollinarius s works 
is true, or that Eusebius made it as the result of a critical 

14 //. E. vi. 22. Works of Hippolytus. Of the writings 
of this famous person, Eusebius confesses that he had but 
little knowledge. He enumerates seven as having come 
into his hands, but adds that a very large number of others 
were preserved by various owners. The seven which he 
mentions are these : (1) On the Hexaemeron, (2) On the 
things folloicing the Hexaemeron, (3) Against Marcion, 
(4) On the Song of Solomon, (5) On parts of Ezekiel, 
(6) Concerning the Pascha, (7) Against all Heresies. All 
these are lost or imperfectly known, but the last was a 

1 H. E. v. 5. 4. 2 H. E. v. 3. 4. 3 Chron., Schoene, ii. 173. 


short work, 1 and there seems no reason why all should 
not have been included in one volume. Before giving 
the list Eusebius mentions the Paschal Cycle of Hippolytus, 
professing to derive his information about it from the book 
Concerning the Pascha. It was, in fact, the circumstance 
that this work could be assigned to the reign of Alexander 
Severus that led Eusebius to mention it in this place. 
Having named it, he proceeds, more suo, to give the con 
tents of the volume in which he found it. It is not with 
out significance that he introduces his list with the words, 
But of his other treatises those which have come into our 
hands are the following, 2 and then, among the rest, 
mentions the treatise Concerning the Pascha again. 

15. H. E. vi. 43. Letters on the Schism of Novatian. 
These seem to have been four in number (1) A letter 3 
from Cornelius of Rome to Fabius of Antioch, telling of 
the proceedings at a Roman synod, and throughout Italy 
and Africa, against Novatian ; (2) A letter 4 from Cyprian, 
in the Latin language, urging mild treatment of the lapsed 
and the excommunication of Novatian ; (3) A letter 5 from 
Cornelius, giving the acts of the synod ; (4) A letter 6 from 
the same to Fabius, recounting the doings of Novatian and 
others, from which copious extracts are given. But were 
these contained in a single volume ? This seems to be 
clearly implied by the words used with reference to the 
third and fourth epistles : ravrais oiXXrj TLS eTnoroA?) 
OWTJTTTO . . . Koi TToXiv eTepa. We have already noticed the 
similar use of o-vvfjTTTo in a like connexion. 7 And other 
indications point to the same conclusion. Only the first 

1 /3ij3Xi8dpioi/, Photius, Bibl. 121. 

2 ru)V 5e \OITTWV CIVTOV cruyypa^tarcoi TO. els T) f\66vra fcrrlv rddf. 

3 3 cTTioToXai, which may mean one letter. See Lightfoot, Ignat.. 
vol. ii, pp. 911, 932. Apparently Jerome so understood it, De Vir. 

Ill- 66. 4 aXXcu. 5 aXXrj TIS eVioroXj/. 

6 frepa. 7 Above, p. 137. See also H. E. i. 13. 11. 


and fourth epistles are directly stated to have been 
addressed to Fabius, and he can hardly have been the 
recipient of the third, which must have covered much 
the same ground as the first. Eusebius, if he had been 
arranging the letters for himself, would naturally have 
brought the first and fourth together. No less natural 
would it have been to name together the three written 
by Cornelius, but, in fact, between two of them intervenes 
the letter of Cyprian. We infer, as we did in a former 
case, 1 that the historian follows the order of the volume 
which lay before him. 

It is not easy to reconcile this passage of Eusebius with 
the list of the letters of Cornelius given by Jerome, 2 with 
which, nevertheless, it has an obvious connexion. Jerome 
states that Cornelius wrote four letters : 

(1) To Fabius : De synodo Romana et Italica et Africana. 

(2) De Novatiano et de his qui lapsi sunt. 

(3) De gestis synodi. 

(4) A very prolix letter to Fabius et Novatianae haere- 
seos causas et anathema continentem . 

The third and fourth of these are plainly our third and 
fourth ; and it might appear equally plain that the first 
is our first. But Benson takes a different view. 3 He 
contends that the, ema-ToXai about the Roman Synod and 
the decisions of the Italians and Africans are not a single 
letter, but two or more ; 4 and he concludes that they 
correspond to Jerome s first and second. But if so, Jerome 
manifestly could not have learned the subject of the 
second epistle from the text of Eusebius. He must have 
had independent knowledge of the letters of Cornelius. 
And yet he names them in Eusebius s order. This is a 

1 Above, p. 147. 2 De Vir. III. 66. 

3 Cyprian, his life, his times, his ivork, 1897, p. 168. 

4 An unnecessary assumption. See above, p. 152, note 3 . 


coincidence which can scarcely be explained otherwise 
than by supposing that both writers found them collected 
together in a volume. Thus from Jerome, on Benson s 
hypothesis, we gain additional reason for believing that 
Eusebius had access to a volume of letters on the schism. 

But I confess that I find it easier to think that Jerome 
was entirely dependent on Eusebius for his knowledge of 
Cornelius s writings. His description of the contents of 
his second letter applies to the letter which stands second 
in Eusebius. We need only suppose that he carelessly 
overlooked the statement that it was written by Cyprian. 
It would be strange, if he had first-hand knowledge of the 
correspondence of Cornelius, that he should follow Eusebius 
so closely as he actually does. With the exception of this 
supposed addition to the list of the letters he tells abso 
lutely nothing which is not in Eusebius s text, Like 
Eusebius he allows us to doubt whether the third letter 
was addressed to Fabius or another. He leaves us in 
similar ignorance, it will be observed, as to the destina 
tion of his second letter, though on Benson s theory the 
History actually states that it was addressed to Fabius. 
This omission confirms our conjecture, for Eusebius does 
not give the name of the person to whom Cyprian wrote 
on the same subject. In short, I have little doubt that 
Jerome s paragraph on Pope Cornelius is nothing more 
than a careless and meagre epitome of H. E. vi. 43. 

16. H. E. vi. 44-46. Letters of Dionysius of Alexandria 
on the same subject. In chapter 44 a letter from Dionysius 
to Fabius is mentioned and quoted, from which extracts 
had already been made in chapters 41, 42. Then follows, 
in chapter 45, a short letter to Novatian, seemingly given 
in full. Immediately connected with this is chapter 46, 
beginning And he writes also to the Egyptians J a letter 

1 By a similar formula the letter to Novatus is connected with that 


concerning Repentance , which letter to the Egyptians is 
the first of a list of thirteen or fourteen epistles occupying 
the entire chapter. 1 The list professes to be a complete 
one, for the heading of the chapter is * Concerning the 
other letters of Dionysius . It is therefore with no little 
surprise that we read the words with which the chapter 
closes : And in the communication which he held in 
writing with many others he has bequeathed manifold 
profit to those who still at this present time diligently 
study his compositions. And it is with equal surprise that 

to Fabius in cap. 45: Let us see how he also wrote to Novatus ; 
these things also to (or against) Novatus. 

1 xliv. To 8 avT<p roi ro) <a/3i a>, VTroKaraKXii/op-eVa) TTCOS ra> 
<rxi<TfJLa.Ti, Kai &IOVIHTIOS 6 Kur AXeaV8peiai> eVio-rei Xas TroXXd re Kai 
XXa Trepi peravoias eV rois Trpbs avrov ypa/ifiao-i dte\0a>v TG>V re /car 
AXedV8peiai> evay^os Tore fj.apTVprja di Tav TOVS dywvas 8ua>i>, /uera rrjs 
ii\\r)s Icrropias 7rpayp.d n fj-fcrrbv Qavfj-aros Si^yeirai, 6 /ecu avro dvayKaiov 
TTJftf -rrapadovvai rfj ypacpfj, ovrcas e\ ov x l v< "l^ &) A iej; ^ 6 avrbs onola 
Koi TO) Noovarw Sie^apa^ev, TapdrrovTi TrjviKaSe rr]v Papaiav a8fX^)or^ra . . . 
xlvi. ravra /cat irpbs TOV NoovaroV Fpatpet 8e KQI roiis /car Atywrrov 
Tri(TTo\f}v Trfpl p.TavoLas, fv TI TO. 86$-avTa avra> Trepi TQ>V iiTroTreTrrco/corcov 
t, ray TrapaTrrco/idrwi/ 8ia-ypa>^as. 2. /cat Trpbs KdXcoi/a (rijs 
8e TrapoiKtas eVicrKOTro? TJV OVTOS) Idia TIS Trepi fj.eravoias UVTOV 
<peperat ypa(f)r) /cat aXX?^ eTTKrrpfTrri/cj) Trpbs TO /car AXe^ai/Spetai avrov 
7roifj,viov. fv TOVTOIS (TT\v /cat T) 7T6pt /jiapTvpiov Trpbs TOV *Q.piytvrjv ypa(pelo~a 
/cat rot? /cara AaoSi /cetav aSeX<pots, toi/ Trpoto-raro Qr)\vp.i8pr)s eTTiV/coTros, /cat 
rots /cara Appfviav wo-aurcos- Trepi p.eTavoias e Trio-re XXei, ajy eTreo-Korrevev 
Mepouai>7?. ^- Trpos arrao-i rovrois /cai Kopi/f/Xio) ra> Kara c Pd)/ur;i/ ypdcpei, 
dedfj,evos avTov Trjv Kara roi) Noovarov TTKTTO\T)V, eo Kai <rr)p.aivt drjXcov 
7rapaKK\ijo-6aL ... wy av eVi rj)i/ vvvodov airavT^oi Trjv Kara Ai/rio- 
ev^a roO Noouarou Kparvvew rives e ve^eipovf ro axia^a. 4. Trpo? 
rovroty eVto-re XXet fj,ijvvdT)vai avro) Qdftiov p.eV KeKoip)o-$ai . . . ypdfai 8e 
Kai Trepi roG eV lepoo~oi\vp.ois avrols prjp,aa~iv <pdo~KQ)v ... 5. e^s TavTj) KOI 
erepa n? eViCTroX^ rois eV e P<ap.r] TOV Aiovvo tov 0eperat diaKoviKr) 8ia ITTTTO- 
\VTOV rot? avroty Se a\\rjv Trepi clprjvrjs fiiaruTrourat, KOI o)o-avreo? Trepi 
, KOI au TraXti/ aXXj;!/ rots e Keto-e o/xoXoy/jraif, en r^ roO Noovarou 
vo>p.rj rols 8e avroTy rouroiy eVe pas 8vo, p.Tadfj.Vois eVi 
KK\rj(riav, e Triore XXei. Kai aXXois 8e TrXei oo-iv opoi&s Sia ypa/z/xtxrcoi/ 
rroiKiXaff rots en vvi/ o~7rov8rjv Trepi rovs Xoyovy avroO TTOIOV pivots 
KaraXeXoi7rei> axpeXeiay. 


we find numerous allusions, in the next book of the History, 
to letters of Dionysius not mentioned here, and even from 
time to time formal lists of them. How is the inconsis 
tency to be explained ? Easily enough. The list in H. E. 
vi. 46 is a complete enumeration of the letters in a single 
volume. Those alluded to at the end of the chapter, and 
catalogued elsewhere, belonged to other volumes. With 
this conclusion agree the words used of the sixth and 
seventh letters, Among these there is also the letter on 
Martyrdom written to Origen, and [a letter] to the 
brethren in Laodicea. : The phrase among these implies 
a definite collection of documents, which would probably 
be bound in a volume. And our hypothesis receives 
further support from the words with which the mention 
of the tenth letter is prefaced, After this there is also 
another letter/ What else can this statement mean than 
that the tenth letter followed the ninth in a book which 
Eusebius was looking through as he wrote ? 

Of the letters which we may suppose to have been 
brought together in this volume the following is a list : 

(1) To Fabius, bishop of Antioch, when he leaned 
towards the schism. Contained many things concerning 
Repentance, an account of the sufferings of the Christians 
of Alexandria in the persecution, and arguments against 
harsh treatment of the lapsed founded thereon. 

(2) To Novatus (i. e. Novatian). Quoted, apparently in 

(3) To the Egyptians concerning Repentance, in which 
he sets forth his views in regard to the treatment of the 

(4) To Colon, 2 bishop of Hermopolis, on Repentance. An 


2 So Schwartz reads the name. Earlier editors (with Jerome, De 
Vir. III. 69) have Conon . 


extant fragment 1 shows that it dealt with various classes 
of persons who should receive absolution on repentance, 
especially those who are apparently in articulo mortis. 
It has some remarkable points of contact with no. 3. 

(5) Admonitory letter to the Alexandrians. 

(6) To Origen on Martyrdom. 

(7) To the Laodiceans. 

(8) To the Armenians concerning Repentance. 2 

(9) To Cornelius, bishop of Rome, when he had received 
his letter against Novatus. Gives information about the 
Synod at Antioch convened when an attempt was being 
made to establish the schism there. 3 

(10) To the Romans by Hippolytus : a i diaconic letter. 

(11) To the same on Peace. 

(12) To the same on Repentance. 4 

(13) To the Confessors at Rome while they still adhered 
to the opinions of Novatus. 

(14) To the same when they had come over to the Church. 

(15) To the same. 

Now of the contents of four of these letters (1, 2, 3, 9) 
we have sufficient knowledge to affirm with complete 
certainty that they dealt directly with the Novatianist 
schism ; and the same may be said with almost as much 
confidence of three others (1315). Of these seven two 
(1, 3) treat also of the cognate topic of repentance. We 
may conclude that the remaining letters concerning 

1 C. L. Feltoe, Letters of Dionysius of Alexandria, 1904, p. 60. 

2 Jerome (De Vir. 111. 69) adds et de ordine delictorum . But if he 
depended on Eusebius he may have attached to this epistle the 
description of no. 3, which he apparently does not mention ypa <pei 

8e Kal rols Kar Alyvrrrov eVioroXr/i/ rrepi peravoias, ev r/ TO. do^avra avra> 
Trepi TCOI/ V7T07re7rra>KOTa>j/ Trapare^firat, raj-cis irapairTWjjLdTwv SiaypoUl/as. 

3 Possibly Eusebius refers here to more than one letter. 

4 It is not clear that 11 and 12 are distinct letters. Eusebius may 
mean that both subjects were dealt with in a single epistle. 


Eepentance (4, 8, 12) regarded the subject from the same 
point of view. In other words, they discussed the question 
whether, and under what conditions, those who had fallen 
away in persecution could be received back into com 
munion with the Church. If so, they also were letters on 
the schism of Novatian. "We need not doubt that the 
discussion on Peace, whether or no it filled an entire 
letter (11), was a protest against the schism. The short 
letter to Novatian (2) itself might fitly have been entitled 
Concerning Peace , ending as it does with the prayer 
that he might fare well clinging to peace . There is no 
difficulty in believing that a letter on Martyrdom (6) 
written, let us say, about the year 251, if it was not 
wholly taken up with the great controversy of the day, 
at least touched upon it in many passages. 1 There 
remain three letters (5, 7, 10), about the subject of which 
Eusebius gives us no hint. 2 But the assumption is not 
rash that they as well as the others had some connexion 
with the Novatianist movement. Thus it is easy to guess 
the reason which may have led to the binding of this 

1 This indeed is not true of the fragments printed by Feltoe (p. 231), 
some parts of which have been regarded by eminent scholars as 
belonging to this letter. But in them martyrdom is only twice 
referred to (p. 243), and never in the portions which have been accepted 
as coming from the letter to Origen. And, as Dr. Feltoe says (p. 230), 

The Dionysian authorship of any of these extracts must be considered 
very doubtful. 

2 Dom Morin, indeed (Rev. Bened. 1900, pp. 241 ff.), thinks that the 
word diaKoviKT] implies that the tenth letter was a tract on ministerial 
functions, and identifies it with the Canons of Hippolytus. But the 
Canons are not cast in epistolary form, and the mention of them 
would be as much out of place among the other letters enumerated 
by Eusebius as would their association with them in the same volume. 
On the meaning of dia<oviKrj cp. Benson, Cyprian, p. 171 f. If we 
may believe Jerome (De Vir. 111. 69) the letter to the Laodiceans (7) 
was de paenitentia . 


collection of letters in one volume. They were all con 
cerned, in the main, with a single topic. 

17. H. E. vii. 2-9. Letters of Dionysius of Alexandria 
on Baptism. Five of the seven letters mentioned in these 
chapters are numbered : 

To him (i. e. Pope Stephen) Dionysius composes the 
first of the letters about Baptism .... [Extract]. 1 And 
when Stephen had fulfilled his ministry for two years 
Xystus succeeds him. In writing to the latter a second 
letter about Baptism Dionysius declares both the opinion 
and the judgement of Stephen and the other bishops, speak 
ing thus about Stephen : [Extracts], And also in the third 
of the [letters] about Baptism, which the same Dionysius 
writes to Philemon, the presbyter at Rome, he sets out 
these facts : [Extracts]. The fourth of his letters about 
Baptism was written to Dionysius of Rome, who then held 
office as a presbyter, but not long afterwards obtained the 
bishopric of the people of that place. . . . And in his 
letter to him after other things he mentions the followers 
of Novatus in these words : [Extract]. And the fifth also 
was written by him to Xystus, bishop of the Romans, in 
which ... he relates a certain event of his time, saying : 
[Extract]. In addition to those already mentioned there 
is extant also another letter of his about Baptism, from 
him and the community over which he ruled to Xystus 
and the Church at Rome. . . . And there is also extant 
another after these to Dionysius of Rome, the letter about 
Lucian. 2 

1 Eusebius (H. E. vii. 4) expressly states that his quotation is from 
the end of the letter. Fragments from the earlier part of it are 
printed in a Syriac version by Feltoe, pp. 45 ff. 


SiaTVTrovTai ... V. 3. Srefpnvov eVt 8v<T\v drroTrX^o-avra rfjv \firovpyiav 
ereo-t SIXTTOS 6ta&e ;(erai. rourw dcvTfpav 6 Aiovixrios Trept /San-TiV/zaros- 
Xapdas eTTtoroX^y, O/LIOU rrjv Srefpdvov KOI T>V \onr)V eTTttrxoTrcoi/ 
yva>p.r)V T KOI Kpiffiv SrjXot, Trept TOU 2T6(pai>ou Xeywv raCra . . . vii. Kat 
fv Tj7 Tpirrj 8e TWV Trept /3aTrrtV/taros , r}V ^iX^/uoi/t TO> Kara Pco/Lti^i/ 
6 avros ypdfai Atoi/uo tos , raura TrapaTi &rat ... 6. 17 
avrov TCOV Trcpl /SaTrrtV/iaros eTrtcrToXcoi Trpo? rov KOTO. Pa>/t7i/ 
toi/vo-toj/, Tore p.ev Trpeo-/3ei ou ^|ta)/iei/ov, OVK els fjaKpbv 8e KCU rrjv 
cTrio-Kmrrjv r>v eVure TrapetXiycpoTa* e^ TJS yv&vai ndpecrTiv OTTOS KOI avros OVTOS 


No explanation of these numbers is so plausible as that 
which regards them as indicating the order of succession 
of the letters in a volume. It might have been thought, 
indeed, that a chronological arrangement was intended. 
But this appears to be negatived by the fact that the 
third and fourth letters of the series are alluded to in the 
second. 1 It may also be remarked that Eusebius seems 
to abandon his rule of the chronological treatment of 
history, in order to bring these letters together. For he 
places the whole series under Gallus. In his reign 
Stephen succeeded to the episcopate, and according to 
Eusebius survived his appointment only two years. 2 
Thus the first letter might be dated before the death of 
Gallus. But the fifth and sixth belong to the episcopate 
of Xystus and therefore to the reign of Valerian, whose 
accession is not recorded till chapter 10. 

18. H. E. vii. 20-23. Festal Epistles of Dionysius of 
Alexandria. Under this head a catalogue of letters is 
given, but Eusebius intimates that his list is not complete. 
It will conduce to clearness if it is reproduced with some 

\dyios TC Kal Trpbs TOV Kor AXedv8p(iav Aiovvo~iov /Mf/xaprup^rai. 
ypdcpei &e avTco /JLC& erepa T>V Kara Noovdrov p,vrjp.ovv(ov f v TOVTOIS. 
. . . ix. Kal r] Tre/jLTTTrj 8e avrco Trpbs TOV Pcop.auoy fTriffKorrov EIHTTOV 
yeypanTO Iv ft TroXXa Kara T>V aiperiKooi/ enrcoi , TOIOVTOV TL yeyovbs Kar 
avTov (KriBtTai Xeycov ... 6. eVi rats 7rpoctpr]p,evais (peperai TLS Kal a\\rj 
TOV avTOv Trept /SaTrrtcr/iaroy cVtcrroX^, e avrov KOI r/s rjyelro rrapoiKias 
Svcrrco /cat rfj Kara Pco/j-rfv eKK\rj<ria TrpocrTre(p(t)vr)fjievr), ev jj 8ta patcpas 
a7ro8ei^eo)S TOV 7Tp\ TOV vTroKeifjL6vov ^rjTrjfjLaTos TTapaTfivfi \6yov. KOI a\\i] 
de TIS avTov P.CTO. TavTas (peptTai rrpbs TOV Kara Pco/x^i/ Aiovvo~ioV) 77 TTfpl 

1 H. E. vii. 5. 6 Kat roty eryaTTfjroIs Se f]p.S>v Kal o-vfjnrpeo-ftvTepois Atoi/im co 
Kal &i\f]p.ovi, o-VfJL\lfrj(poLS trpoTepov 2re(pai/<u yevoptvots Kal Trepl TO>V avrav JJLOI 
ypd(j)ovo~iv, TrpoTfpov p.ev oXi -ya, Kal vvv de dia 7T\ei6va>v eVe oreiXa. At least 
two of the four letters here mentioned seem to have been written 
during the pontificate of Stephen. 

2 Chronica, A. Abr. 2270 (Schoene, ii. 182 f.) ; H. E. vii. 2 ; 5. 3. 


Dionysius, in addition to the letters of his which were 
mentioned, composed at that time also the festal epistles 
which are still extant. ... Of these he addresses one to 
Flavins, and another to Domitius and Didymus (in which 
he sets out a canon based on a cycle of eight years . . .). 
In addition to these he pens another letter to his fellow 
presbyters at Alexandria, and to others likewise in differ 
ent places. And these [he writes] while the persecution 
is still proceeding. But peace is no sooner come than he 
returns to Alexandria. Again, however, sedition and 
war broke out there, so that it was not possible for him to 
exercise oversight over all the brethren throughout the 
city, since they were divided into various parts by the 
sedition, and once more at the Paschal festival, as though 
he were some exile, from Alexandria itself he held com 
munication with them by letter. And also after these 
things, in the course of another festal epistle to Hierax, 
a bishop of the people in Egypt, he mentions the sedition 
of the Alexandrians, which took place under him, in these 
words : [Extract]. After these things, when a pestilential 
sickness had succeeded the war, and the feast was draw 
ing near, once more he holds communication with the 
brethren in writing, describing the sufferings due to this 
misfortune in these words : [Extracts]. And after this 
epistle also, when the dwellers in the city had attained 
peace, he once more sends a festal letter to the brethren 
in Egypt, and besides this again he writes others. And 
there is a certain letter of his extant about the sabbath 
and another about discipline. And again when com 
municating with Hermammon and the brethren in Egypt 
by letter, and after passing in review many things about 
the evil deeds of Decius and his successors, he mentions 
the peace under Gallienus. : 

1 XX. "O ye fj.rjv &iovvo~ios Trpos rait drjXtadeto ais fViaroXcus 1 avrov en Kin 
ras <frfpop.evas copraOTiKas TO TrjViKavra crwrarrfi . . . TOVTWV r/)i> p,ev 
7rpoo-<p(ave i, TTJV oe Ao/i6ri KOI AtSi /ia> (ev rj Kai Kavova eVcrt 
. . .). Trpos ravrais KOI aXXrjv rots /car AXedV8peiai> crvfjLnpeo-^vTfpois eVt- 
(TTO\r)v oiaxapaTTfi, erepois Tf 6/zoC 8ia(pdp<y, Kal rauras en TOV 8ia>yp.ov 
avvfo-TMTos. xxi. ETTtXajSouo*?;? 8e ouov ovnto rrjs elpr)vr]s, firdvfuri fj.fv fls 
rrjv AXet-dvdpeiav, TraXiv S evravda orao~e<0s Kai TroXf/xou o~voTaiToy, a>s ov^ 
olov Tf rjv avrco TOVS Kara rr]V ir6\iv anavTas d8e\(povs, (Is (KaTfpov Trjs 
crrao~eo)y /ze^o? 8irjpr]^.evovs, eTriffKonelv, avdis fv rij TOV 7rdo~)(a eopr//, coo~7Tfp 
ns vTTfpopios, e avTfjs r^y AXf avdpeias Sta ypap.p.dra)V avTois wp Xet. 2. *a 


From this long passage we learn that the following 
ten festal letters of Dionysius were known to Eusebius : 

(1) The letter to Flavius. 

(2) The letter to Domitius and Didymus. 

(3) A letter to his fellow presbyters at Alexandria and 
others. 1 

(4) A letter to the brethren in Alexandria. 

(5) A letter to Hierax. 

(6) A second letter to the brethren. 2 

(7) A letter to the brethren in Egypt. 

(8) A letter on the Sabbath. 

(9) A letter on Discipline . 

(10) A letter to Hermammon and the brethren in Egypt. 

e /uera ravra T)V K.O.T Atyvnrov eVtTKOTr&J erepav 
firi(TTO\r)v ypdfpuv, rrjs /car avrov TWV AXeai/5peW arao-ea)? p.vrjp.ovfvfi Bia 
Tovrtov . . . xxii. Mera ravra \oip,iKrjs TOV noKf^ov SiaXa/Soixj/js 1 voo~ov rrjs 
re eopTr/s TrXrja-iatovo-rjS, avdts 8ia ypacpr/s rols d8eX0ot? 6/iiXei, TO. rfjs 
avfj.(popaf fni(rr)iJiaii>6iJ,vos irddr} 8ia TOUTCOI/ ... 11. /zera Se Kal TavrrjV rf)V 
firi(TTO\r]v, ipT]VfV(rdvT(i>v TU>V Kara TTJV TroXiv, rots KUT A iyvnrov aSfX^oi? 
fopra(TTiKrjv avdis eTTterreXXei ypa(pr)v, Kal enl ravTT] ndXiv aXXa? dinrvrrovTai 
(peperai de TIS avrov Ka\ nep\ (ra/3/3arou Kal aXX^ nepl yvp.vaariov. 12. 
Ep/jnip/jLcovi de 7rd\tv Kal rols Kar Aiyi/Trror ddf\(pois 81 emcnoXijs 6/LttXaii/ 
TroXXa TC ttXXa nepl TTJS AfKiov Kal Twv /ir avTOV 6ie|eX^a)j/ KaKorponias, rrjs 
KOTO. TOV Ta^\ir)vbv elprjvrjs eVi/xi^ti/^cr/cerai. 

1 Compare letter 10, To Hermamnion and the brethren in Egypt. 
In the present instance, however, Feltoe (pp. 65, 90) distinguishes the 
letter to others from that to the presbyters, and he is possibly right. 
But in that case we should have expected some such word as SXXrjv 
before trepois. 

2 Feltoe (p. 79 note) regards no. 4 and no. 6 as identical. But this 
is scarcely possible. Eusebius says that no. 5 was written after no. 4, 
and no. 6 after no. 5. He tells us also that no. 4 was written at Easter, 
and no. 6 when Easter was approaching. And in describing no. 6 
he says that Dionysius once more (avdis) wrote to the brethren, 
apparently implying that he had mentioned another letter to the 
same persons. Moreover, as Feltoe himself points out, the account 
given of the circumstances under which no. 4 was written, gathered 
no doubt from the letter itself, is not confirmed by the extract given 
by Eusebius from no. 6. 


The last of these epistles is not expressly stated by 
Eusebius to have been festal in character. But the 
closing words of his second extract from it put the matter 
almost beyond question: in which (viz. the ninth year 
of Gallienus) let us keep festival (eo/orao-to/zei/). 1 

Very noteworthy is the phrase in the opening sentence 
of this list : in addition to the letters which were men 
tioned. It might be supposed that the inference was to 
the numerous letters alluded to in earlier chapters, and 
especially in those more immediately preceding. Such, 
for example, are the letters to Hermammon, and to Do- 
mitius and Didymus, quoted in vii. 1, 10, 11, and that 
headed 77/309 Je/o/zayoV, from which extracts are given in vii. 
11. But this is unlikely. 2 For two of these are actually 
named in the list itself, and we shall presently give 
reason for supposing the third to be also included. The 
fore-mentioned epistles therefore are probably those 
formally enumerated in the lists already considered. 
This appears to be indicated further by the tense, 
SrjXtoOeLo-cus for the more usual StdrjXcafjievais. We have 
in this phrase, therefore, a confirmation of the conclusion 
already reached, that those lists are exhaustive enumera 
tions of definite collections of letters, and an encourage 
ment to think that the list now before us may be another 
of the same kind. 

Another indication which points in the same direction 
is found in two fragments of letters of Dionysius printed 
by Dr. Feltoe. 3 The first of these is headed, From the 
second Epistle, and deals with the state of mind which 
befits those who keep festival. The second is headed, From 
the fourth Festal Epistle. Thus both are extracts from 
festal letters of Dionysius, and the title in each case 

1 H. E. vii. 23. 4. So Dittrich, Dionysius d. Grosse, 1897, p. 119. 

2 Not, however, impossible. See above, p. 152. 3 p. 90. 



implies a recognized order of the letters which would 
naturally have its origin in some early collection of them 
in a single volume. It cannot be proved that they came 
from the same collection, or that either of them is from 
a letter included in Eusebius s list. But the assumption 
is not improbable in itself, and there is no evidence on 
the other side. It is true that the first has no point of 
contact with the quotations which Eusebius makes from 
his second letter that which was addressed to Domitius 
and Didymus. 1 But neither has the Paschal Canon 
which it certainly included. 2 As to the second, there is 
nothing to hinder us from believing that it is part of the 
epistle which stands fourth in Eusebius s catalogue. For 
though his extract from the letter to Hierax 3 is wholly 
taken up with a description of the horrors that followed 
in the wake of bloodshed and pestilence, the letter may 
also have contained some reference to the loving deeds of 
the Christians which such times of calamity always called 
forth, 4 in the context of which this little piece on the 
devices by which love wins its way in seeking to help 
others might well find place. 

It has been hinted that the epistle 777)09 Ttpnavov is 
probably one of those indicated in our list. The title is 
ambiguous, but the tenor of one of the extracts from it, 5 
in which Germanus is spoken of contemptuously in the 
third person, makes it difficult to believe that the epistle 
was addressed to him. We may therefore render its 
heading Against Germanus . To whom then was it sent ? 
The concluding clause of the same passage seems to give 
a hint as to the answer to this question. After alluding to 
his sufferings under Valerian, Dionysius adds, I forbear 

1 H. E. vii. 11. 20-25. 2 H. E. vii. 20. 3 H. E. vii. 21. 2-10. 

4 See the letters to Domitius and Didymus (H. E. vii. 11. 24) and 
the brethren in Alexandria (ib. 22. 7 if.). 

5 H. E. vii. 11. 18 f.; cp. 2. 


to give to the brethren who know them a detailed narra 
tive of the things that happened. 1 The letter would 
appear to have been written to certain brethren who had 
knowledge, or easy means of gaining knowledge, of what 
he had endured in the recent troubles. They must have 
been Egyptians. They probably lived in Alexandria, or 
its neighbourhood. The letter may therefore be identical 
with (3), (4), or (7) in the list. 

If this guess be correct and only less so if it be not 
and if the Festal Epistles formed a separate volume, it 
clearly appears that Eusebius deals with this volume just 
as he dealt with that containing the Martyrdom of 
Polycarp. In recording the incidents of the persecution 
of Valerian he has occasion to use three of these letters. 
Extracts from them are accordingly given in chaps. 10, 11. 
Then, after some further remarks of a desultory kind, he 
proceeds to give a list of the contents of the volume, 
making extracts from, or remarks upon, several of the 
letters which it contains as he goes along. But perhaps 
the most convincing indication that we have here a volume 
of letters is the fact that, in dealing with these epistles, 
Eusebius makes mistakes which we might expect him to 
make if they were bound together, but which are almost 
inexplicable otherwise. Of these mistakes some account 
will be rendered below. 

19. H. E. vii. 26. Epistles ofDionysius of Alexandria on 
the SabelUan Heresy. The twenty-fourth and twenty- fifth 
chapters of the seventh book of the History are devoted to a 
consideration of the controversy between Dionysius and the 
Egyptian bishop Nepos on the subject of Chiliasm. The 
outcome of the discussion was a treatise in two books, en- 

1 Or perhaps I leave to the brethren who know them the task of 
giving a detailed narrative , rrjv KCL& eKaarov TW ycvopevfov 8ir]yr]tnv 


titled Concerning Promises, from the pen of Dionysius, 
several fragments of which have been preserved by Euse- 
bius. It appears to have been a long and elaborate work, 
and may well have been bound in a volume apart. But in 
the twenty-sixth chapter we come upon another group 
of minor writings. About these Eusebius is reticent ; 
perhaps because they were connected with a passage in 
Dionysius s life upon which he did not wish to dwell. 
The group consists of four letters on Sabellianism to 
different persons (probably all Egyptian bishops), and four 
letters to Dionysius of Rome on the same topic. These 
eight may have made a volume. With the mention of 
them and three other works which he knew, and a general 
reference to many other epistles, the catalogue of the 
works of Dionysius ends. 

We have now found traces of some nineteen volumes 
of tracts of which Eusebius appears to have made use. 
The existence of some of them, no doubt, may be disputed ; 
but it must be remembered that our argument has been 
in some sense cumulative. If the a priori likelihood that 
such volumes were in his hands is admitted, evidence of 
their use in particular cases is worth considering which 
might otherwise have been ruled out, and the better 
attested instances increase the probability of our conclu 
sion where positive evidence is scanty. 

But it is now time to show in what way these volumes 
influenced the chronology of our historian. The principle 
on which the documents were grouped, in the cases which 
we have examined, seems to be mainly an arrangement 
according to subjects, no attention having been paid to 
chronology. But certainly in one instance, probably in 
others, if not in all, Eusebius assumed that the principle 
was the exact contrary, and hence he was led into error 
as regards dates. 


This is manifest upon a consideration of his use of the 
volume containing the Martyrdom of Polycarp. 1 He quite 
unmistakably makes Pionius and Metrodorus contempo 
raries of Polycarp. But the Acts of their martyrdoms are 
in our hands, 2 and we learn from them that they suffered 
a century after Polycarp, under Decius. The conclusion 
is forced upon us that Eusebius regarded the martyrdoms 
as synchronous merely because the records of them were 
bound together. Lightfoot, indeed, suggests that the 
Acts themselves may have been partly responsible for his 
error. He uses the phrase VTTO rr]v avrrjv irepioSov TOV 
Xpovov, which he may have taken from them. Capable 
as it is of two meanings, either { at the same time , or at 
the same season of the year , Eusebius may have taken it 
in the former sense, while the martyrologist used it in 
the latter. He may also have been misled by the opening 
statement, that Pionius was celebrating the birthday of 
Polycarp. This explanation might serve if we had only 
Pionius and Metrodorus to deal with. But what shall we 
say about Carpus and the rest ? Here, again, we can 
consult the genuine Acts. From a careful examination of 
the slight indications of date which they supply, Light- 
foot gathers that Carpus and Papylus probably suffered 
either under Marcus Aurelius, or under Septimius Severus. 
So that in this case Eusebius s date may be correct. But 
the chronological data of the Acts are very meagre. If 
Eusebius had noticed them at all, which does not seem 
likely, he could scarcely have made use of them. They 
would reveal nothing to one who was not pretty familiar 
with the history of the Antonine Emperors. His mistakes 
in regard to them are portentous, as we shall just now see 
in one striking instance. Here at least, then, it seems 

1 See Lightfoot, Ign. i. 624 ff., 696 ff., and Valois, ad loc. 

2 Gebhardt, Acta Mart. Sel., p. 96. For the Acts of Carpus, $c., see 
p. 13. 


impossible to suppose that his chronology had any better 
foundation than the whim of the librarian who arranged 
his volume of tracts. 

Let us turn now to another case, in which Eusebius 
has admittedly gone astray in a date. He places the 
Second Apology of Justin Martyr, and consequently his 
martyrdom, which he believed to have occurred shortly 
after it was written, in the reign of Marcus Aurelius. 
But internal evidence marks the Second Apology as very 
little later in date than the first, and as presented to the 
same Emperors, 1 while the Aeta lustini, even if they be 
not admitted to be genuine, give us good reason for 
believing that he suffered after the end of the reign of 
Antoninus Pius. 2 How, then, did the error of the his 
torian arise ? It can be explained without difficulty if we 
suppose that Eusebius used the volume which we have 
marked 7 above, and assumed that the documents which it 
contains were arranged in chronological order. He had 
before him the First Apology, which he put under 
Antoninus Pius. It was followed by the spurious letter 
to the Commune Asiae. To whom was it to be referred ? 
To be sure it had the name of Marcus Aurelius in its 
first line. But this had evidently no weight with Euse 
bius, and naturally so, for readers of the History are well 
aware that he did not know the imperial name of this 
Emperor. He had to decide the matter on other grounds. 
Suppose then he gave it to Marcus Aurelius, he is at once 
in difficulties. Marcus Aurelius was a persecutor. He 
could not have penned such a letter. But if he did, how 
could the /Second Apology have followed it, with its tale 

1 Diet, of Christ. Bioy. iii. 563 ff. 

2 Ib. pp. 562, 564. It is hardly possible to suppose that the name 
of the prefect Rusticus is an invention, and if it be true that Justin 
suffered under him, the date of the martyrdom is brought down to 
A.D. 163 at the earliest. 


of the sufferings of the Christians quoted in H.E. iv. 17 ? 
And how could Justin himself have been shortly after 
wards put to death ? So the epistle to the Commune must 
be assigned to the reign of Pius. It is there in its right 
place, for Pius did not persecute. 1 And for the same reason 
the subsequent Apology and martyrdom must be thrown 
forward into the following reign. If Eusebius reasoned 
in this way as to the dates of the letter to the Commune 
Asiae and the Second Apology, the further step was easy 
of connecting the First Apology with the letter in the 
way of cause and effect. And this step he seems to have 
taken ; for, after quoting the first sentence of the Apology, 
ending with the words rr\v Trpoa-^vrja-Lv KOU iv-reu^v ircirouipu, 
he proceeds, In-cuxSels 8t K<U vfi eVepaw d avrbs pacriXtvs tirl 
rrjy Adieus d<SeA0a>> . . . TOLCLVTTJS rj^iaxre TO KOLVOV rfjs Aaia$ 
&aTaea>y. 2 That there had been several tvrtvgeis besides 
that of Justin he may have gathered from the letter itself : 
KOU e/jLol Se Trepl T&V TOIOVTWV noXXol eorrj jjLavav? 

It is well known that Eusebius is guilty of an extra 
ordinary blunder with reference to the persecution of 
Valerian. He quotes, as giving a narrative of the suf 
ferings of Dionysius during that persecution, two passages 
from the letter to Domitius and Didymus. 4 We have 
only to compare the passages quoted with others which 
he extracts from the Epistle against Germanus 5 to be con 
vinced that Dionysius is speaking, not of what happened to 
him under Valerian s persecution, but of the events of the 
earlier persecution of Decius. 6 Possibly a consideration of 

1 The only martyrdom under Pius recorded by Eusebius is that of 
Pope Telesphorus, which he assigns to the first year of his reign (H. E. 
iv. 10). This martyrdom is not mentioned in the Chronica. 

2 H. E. iv. 12. 3 H. E. iv. 13. 6. 

4 H. E. vii. 11. 20 ff. 5 H. E. vi. 40. 

6 It was written apparently at a late period of the persecution. 
Only two of his five original companions now remained with him. 


the volume of Festal Epistles marked 18 above may help 
us to understand how so gross an error was perpetrated. 
It will be seen that Eusebius dates some of the epistles in 
that volume with very considerable (if misleading) preci 
sion. The first three to Flavius, to Domitius and Didy- 
mus, and to the Alexandrian presbyters were written 
while the persecution was proceeding, i. e. between 
A. D. 258 and 260. The next was written at Easter, 1 after 
Dionysius s return to Alexandria, when the persecution 
was scarcely over, i. e. Easter 261. The letter to Hierax 
was written after these things (pera ravra), and as it 
was a Festal Epistle we cannot put it earlier than the 
period preceding Easter in the following year, A. D. 262. 
The sixth letter is again after these things . which brings 
us down to A.D. 263. It was written * when the feast was 
approaching . 2 With the phrase and after this epistle 
applied to the seventh letter, we advance to A. D. 264, the 
year before the date given in the Chronica for the death 
of Dionysius. After this the dates are prudently omitted, 
except in the case of the tenth epistle, to Hermammon, 
which is dated by Eusebius from internal evidence 
apparently in 262. 

One seems to have returned to Alexandria, and another had, perhaps, 
died (H. E. vii. 11. 24). See also Feltoe, p. 66, notes on 11. 9, 10. 

1 Not, as in the case of an ordinary Festal Epistle, before Easter. 

2 It is of course possible that two letters (in addition to that to 
Hermammon) were written in view of the Paschal festival of 262, the 
fifth about the beginning of the year and the sixth a couple of months 
after these things , when the festival had almost come. This is 
Dr. Feltoe s view (p. 84). If it is correct the seventh letter must be 
dated before Easter 263. I cannot think, however, that these are the 
dates which Eusebius intended to indicate. If they were, it remains 
to be asked, How did Eusebius know which of the two came first ? 
It is hardly likely that the text of the letters supplied him with 
information on this point. And if these letters truthfully describe the 
state of affairs at Alexandria in the period preceding Easter 262, it is 
not easy to find place in that period for the exultant words of the 
letter to Hermammon in H. E. vii. 23. 


It is obvious to remark that, as our author is ten years 
out in the date of the letter to Domitius and Didymus, 
too much reliance need not be placed on his chronology 
of the others. And indeed it might be plausibly argued 
that the preposition //era was not intended by him to 
indicate temporal sequence, but merely order in the 
volume in which the letters were bound, were it not that 
he definitely connects the letters with successive events. 
The fourth was penned while sedition and fighting were 
proceeding, as was the fifth likewise, the sixth during a 
pestilence which followed the sedition, the seventh when 
peace was restored. Let us now glance at the fourth and 
fifth letters. In the former, according to Eusebius (and 
he is doubtless paraphrasing correctly), the writer men 
tions that, on account of the sedition, he was obliged to 
communicate with his flock, not in person, but by letter. 
In the latter he mentions the sedition . Here some critics 
find fault with our historian. He introduces, says 
Dr. Bright, 1 as referring to an Alexandrian sedition, 
a letter of Dionysius which evidently refers to an Alex 
andrian pestilence. But the letter does refer to the 
sedition more than once. The harbours, he writes, are an 
image of those through which the Israelites passed, for 
oftentimes from the murders committed in them they are 
as it were a Red Sea . And always , whether in flood 
or nearly dry, the river which runs by the city flows de 
filed with blood and murders and drownings , even as it 
did in the days of Pharaoh, when it changed into blood 
and stank. 2 This is not a reference to slaughter which 
had ceased. For the dead bodies which lie unburied after 
war is over, though they may pollute the rivers, do not 

1 Eusebius s Ecclesiastical History, p. 1. And similarly Feltoe, pp. 79, 
85, 86. 

2 H. E. vii. 21. 4, 6. 


cause them to run with gore. And is not the following 
unmistakable ? 

Verily with my own loved ones (<nr\dyyva), brethren 
who dwell in my own house, who are of one soul with me, 
citizens of the same Church, I must needs communicate in 
writing. And that I should dispatch the letters seems 
impossible. For it is easier for a man to journey not 
merely into a neighbouring province, but even from the 
East into the West than from one part of Alexandria to 
another. 1 

It was surely not pestilence but war that made the main 
street of the city impassable for its devoted bishop. In 
fact these words so exactly describe the position to which 
Dionysius was reduced by the sedition when the fourth 
letter was penned, that it seems impossible to believe that 
the two epistles were separated by an interval of a year, 
or indeed by many weeks. Nevertheless it remains that 
the main concern of Dionysius is, in this letter, not the 
sedition, but the pestilence. The pestilence, however, 
Eusebius tells us, followed the sedition, and was the sub 
ject of the sixth letter, A.D. 263. The confusion of all 
this is manifest. It is now time to make the attempt to 
unravel it. 

Here then is my suggestion. Eusebius took up the 
volume of Festal Epistles. In one of them he found 
a definite date. The epistle to Hermammon seems to 
connect itself with Easter 262. On the assumption that 
the arrangement is chronological this brings all the 
epistles in the volume into the epoch the central event of 
which was the edict of toleration of Gallienus. He turns 
then to the second epistle, that addressed to Domitius 
and Didymus. This was evidently written before the 
persecution to which it refers had concluded. * And now , 
says its writer, * I and Gaius and Peter are shut up in a 

1 H. E. vii. 21. 3. 


desert and parched place in Libya. 1 Eusebius accord 
ingly dates it before the end of the persecution of 
Valerian. But the letters ex hypothesi succeeded one 
another in the order in which they appeared in the 
volume. Hence the fourth, written as it was from Alex 
andria, is put at the earliest possible moment after 
Dionysius s return from banishment. The fifth and sixth 
follow in successive years, and are attached, as well as 
might be, to the historical events by which Eusebius 
supposed that the persecution was followed. 

But what were those events ? They were easily dis 
covered from the sixth letter. It was evidently written, 
as Eusebius states, during a pestilence, 2 and it refers to 
past sufferings. First there was a persecution (assumed 
of course to have been that which happened under 
Valerian). This was followed by war and famine. Then 
came a brief period of rest, 3 and finally the pestilence 
which was still raging. 4 Between the persecution and 
the pestilence the fourth and fifth letters must be placed. 
They are both therefore connected with the only outstand 
ing events which Eusebius supposed to have marked the 
interval, the war and the famine which accompanied it. 

If this suggestion be correct, it will follow that the 
dates given by Eusebius for the Festal Epistles have no 
independent value. And even if it be not well founded, 
it is difficult to see how, in view of the mistakes which he 
has certainly made, they can be relied upon, unless they 
are supported by the internal evidence of the fragments 
of these letters which still remain. 5 
1 H. E. vii. 11. 23. 2 17 vwos avrrj, H. E. vii. 22. 6. 

3 PpaxvTaTrjs dvauvor)?. 4 H. E. vii. 22. 4-6. 

5 Apart from the portions preserved by Eusebius we have only the 
short extracts mentioned above, p. 163, and a sentence from the letter 
rrfpl<riov (Feltoe, p. 256). None of these supply any chrono 
logical data. 


Now of the ten Festal Letters no extracts are given by 
Eusebius from the first, seventh, eighth, and ninth. 
Their dates are therefore of no importance, and cannot be 
fixed. The second, to Domitius and Didymus, was written 
under Decius. Eusebius s date is therefore incorrect. 
The third, if we may identify it with the Epistle against 
Germanus, was written while the Valerian persecution 
was proceeding, for in it Valerian and Gallienus are men 
tioned l as the reigning Emperors, and Dionysius speaks 
of the sufferings which he still endures under Valerian s 
prefect Aemilianus. 2 Here, therefore, Eusebius is pro 
bably correct. We have already given reasons for 
believing that the fourth and fifth, written as Eusebius 
rightly says in time of war, were not separated by the 
interval of a year by which he assumes that they were 
parted. "Whether they are rightly connected with the 
persecution of Valerian, or should not rather have been 
placed under Decius or Gallus, must be left an open 
question. As to the sixth, Eusebius is again right in 
supposing it to have been penned while Alexandria was 
suffering from pestilence. But it seems equally certain 
that the pestilence is not that which is alluded to in the 
previous epistles, for in them the pestilence and the war 
are synchronous, while the sixth letter states that the war 
was divided from the following pestilence by an interval 
of rest. If, therefore, the fourth and fifth letters belonged 
to the reign of Gallienus, the sixth must be put back to 
the time of Gallus. 3 

We may now turn to the letters on the Novatianist 

1 H.E.vii.n.8. 2 Ib. 18. 

3 I observe that Professor Gwatkin regards this as its true date 
(Early Church History, 1909, vol. ii, p. 263). The pestilence began 
under Decius (in the autumn of 250 ?) and continued to rage under 
Gallus. Since it came from Ethiopia Alexandria was probably the 


schism (15). In connexion with this schism, two important 
Synods are mentioned both by Eusebius and by Cyprian 
one in Rome, the other in Africa. Which came first ? 
Eusebius seems to imply that the Roman Synod preceded 
the African when he speaks of a very great Synod having 
been gathered at Rome . . . and the bishops of the remain 
ing provinces having considered independently in their 
several districts what was to be done the final phrase 
being explained lower down by the words touching * the 
things that seemed good to those in Italy and Africa and 
the districts there .* But, if so, he contradicts Cyprian, 
who appears to date the African Synod immediately after 
the close of the Decian persecution, a subsequent letter 
to Cornelius being followed by the Roman Synod. 2 
Cyprian is, of course, the better authority, and accordingly 
Benson puts the African Synod in April, the Roman in 
June or July 25 1. 3 Probably Eusebius was misled by 
finding the letter of Cyprian and the African bishops after 
that of Cornelius containing the proceedings of the Synod 
held at Rome, in the volume which he used. 

This suggestion leads to a further remark. If our 
argument has any force it is always unsafe to rely on the 
statements of Eusebius as to the relative dates of docu 
ments, if there is a reasonable suspicion that the documents 

first city visited by it (Zonaras, xii. 21 ; Cedrenus, p. 257 f.). It reached 
Carthage in 252 (Benson, Cyprian, p. 241). 

1 vi. 43. 2, 3. 

2 Ep. 55. 6 (ed. Hartel, p. 627 f.) : Persecutione sopita,cum data esset 
facultas in unum conueniendi, copiosus episcoporum numerus ... in 
unum conuenimus ... Ac si minus sufficiens episcoporum in Africa 
numerus uidebatur, etiamRomam super hac re scripsimus adCornelium 
collegam nostrum, qui et ipse cum plurimis coepiscopis habito con- 
cilio in eandem nobiscum sententiam . . . consensit. 

3 Cyprian, pp. 127 f., 156, 163 f. Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, i. 2. 5 
(E. T. vol i, p. 94 f.), dates the African Synod in May and the Roman 
in October. 


in question were bound together in a single volume. Let 
us take some examples. 

In H. E. vii. 9. 6 Eusebius seems to say that a letter 
of Dionysius of Alexandria to his namesake of Rome 
concerning one Lucian was subsequent to two written 
to Pope Xystus. This is, of course, certainly correct if 
Dionysius was bishop when he received the letter. But 
our certainty is not increased by the testimony of Eusebius, 
for two reasons : first, because the letter happens to have 
followed those addressed to Xystus in our seventeenth 
volume ; and, secondly, because we cannot be sure that in 
such a case the words After these letters (/*era Tavras) 
have a temporal sense. They may simply indicate the fact 
to which we have just now called attention, the position 
of the letter about Lucian in the volume which Eusebius 
was using at the moment. 1 

Again, stress has been laid on the words in H. E. iv. 26. 2, 
e?n Tracri KCU TO irpbs Avrtovlvov fiL/3Xi8ioi>, as indicating 
that the Apology was Melito s last work. 2 But here 
again we seem to be dealing with a volume of tracts (12 
above), and it is therefore possible that em TTOLCTL may 
mean no more than last of all in the order of arrangement. 
But if it has a chronological sense it may only express 
Eusebius s inference from the phenomena of the volume 

In conclusion one or two other cases may be mentioned 
in which it may be well to bear in mind Eusebius s practice 
of quoting from volumes in which were bound together 

1 Is it possible that the Lucian about whom Dionysius wrote was the 
person of the same name at whose request Cyprian wrote a letter to 
Quintus on the baptism of heretics (Ep. 71, Hartel, p. 771) ? If so, it 
is not difficult to understand why it was included in the volume of 
Epistles about Baptism, and it may be dated c. 257, to which period 
all the other letters in the volume are naturally referred. 

2 Diet, of Christ. Biog. iii. 894. 


tracts which were possibly widely separated in date. 
The statement is sometimes made that the heretic Blastus 
was contemporary with Florinus, on the ground that 
Eusebius names them together in H. E. v. 20. But it is 
not improbable that the letter of Irenaeus to Blastus is 
here mentioned immediately before the two to Florinus 
merely because it stood first in the volume in which they 
occupied the second and third places. In that case the 
adjuration quoted by Eusebius may be regarded as a 
scribe s note applying to the entire volume. 1 It is some 
confirmation of this hypothesis that Eusebius, after 
transcribing the note, proceeds to quote, not from the 
third, but from the second of the tracts referred to. It is 
of course admitted that the evidence for the existence of 
this volume is not strong, and for that reason it has not 
been included in the list given above. All that is contended 
is that the possibility of its existence diminishes the force 
of the argument in favour of Blastus and Florinus having 
taught at Rome at the same time. 

An inference has been drawn as to the date of Quadratus, 
bishop of Athens, from the fact that he was mentioned in 
a letter of Dionysius of Corinth. 2 Eusebius in his Chro- 
nica gives A. D. 171 as the floruit of Dionysius. But this 
date appears to have been merely an inference from the 
only one of the epistles in the same volume (8 above) 
which furnished chronological data. It was certainly 
written during the episcopate of Pope Soter (166-174). 3 
But we have no right to conclude that the other letters 
were penned about the same time, though Eusebius may 
have done so. There is no reason why the letter to the 
Athenians may not have been written twenty years before 
the accession of Soter. And it is not certain that 
Quadratus was alive when it was sent. On the contrary, 
, a papyrus roll. 2 H. E. iv. 23. 3. 3 9. 


it seems to be implied that the Athenians had lapsed from 
the vigour of faith to which his zeal had roused them 
after the martyrdom of his predecessor Publius. But, 
however that may be, there is no difficulty in supposing 
that he was the Quadra tus who presented an Apology to 
the Emperor Hadrian. 1 

As I have mentioned the Apology of Quadratus, I am 
tempted to make another suggestion. Dr. E/endel Harris 2 
has drawn attention to the similarity between its title, 
gathered from various references to it by Eusebius, and 
that of the newly recovered Apology of Aristides. The 
former he supposes, with Harnack, to have run somewhat 
thus : Aoyo? a7ro\oyia$ virep 7779 r&v XpLVTLav&v Oeoo-e/Seias. 
And the latter: airoXoyta vnlp rfjs 0eo<reei ay. How is 
the resemblance to be explained? I venture to think 
it possible that Eusebius had in his hands a volume 
containing both with a general title, such as aTroXoyiat. 
viTtp rfjs Qtocrepetas. "When they were copied separately 
each would be superscribed with this title, the singular 
being of course substituted for the plural. 

1 For the same reason the argument of Dr. Rendel Harris (Texts 
and Studies, vol. i, pt. 1, p. 11), that on the assumption that the 
Apologist and the bishop were the same person the Apology must have 
been presented to Antoninus Pius, seems to have little weight. 

2 Ib. p. 10. 


THE work of Eusebius of Caesarea which is known by 
the title De Marty ribus Palestinae has come down to us in 
two forms. The better known of these is the Greek recen 
sion, which in most of the printed editions of the Eccle 
siastical History of the same writer follows the eighth 
book. But it is now half a century since a Syriac ver 
sion of another recension was made generally accessible by 
the labours of the late Dr. Cureton. 1 It is contained in 
the British Museum MS. Add. 12150, which bears the 
date A.D. 411. It is obviously a translation from a Greek 
original ; but the manifest corruptions of the text suggest 
that it is considerably later than the Syriac exemplar 
from which it is ultimately derived, and certain erroneous 
readings of the underlying Greek which can still be 
detected point to the conclusion that the manuscript from 
which the rendering was made was in its turn separated 
by some decades from the autograph. Thus there can be 
little doubt that the original work was contemporary with 
Eusebius (f 339). 2 And there is not wanting evidence, 
internal and external, that both it and the more familiar 
Greek recension are products of his pen. 3 Lightfoot s 
theory of the relation between the two forms of the work 
is probably correct. He held that the longer edition, now 

1 History of the Martyrs in Palestine by Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, 
discovered in a very antient Syriac manuscript : edited and translated 
into English by William Cureton. London, Edinburgh, and Paris, 

2 Dictionary of Christian Biography, ii. 318 f. 3 Ib. 320. 



represented by Cureton s Syriac, was the original form of 
the book, and that it was written mainly for the instruc 
tion of the Christians of Caesarea ; while the shorter 
edition, on the other hand, was abridged from it, and was 
but a part of a larger work intended for a wider public. 1 
But it is not necessary in this paper to assume the truth 
of Lightfoot s conclusion. We may rest content with the 
assurance that the Syriac and the Greek recensions are 
two editions of the same treatise, both of which received 
their final form from Eusebius of Caesarea. 

Now both of them present a very striking contrast to 
the two books of the Ecclesiastical History which cover 
the same period. The ninth book of the History is 
absolutely devoid of explicit chronological data ; the eighth 
has only a few, and those for the most part vague and 
difficult to interpret. The De Martyribus, on the contrary, 
bristles with dates. Of almost every event recorded in it 
we are told the year, the month, the day of the month, 
and even sometimes the day of the week. Quite apart, 
therefore, from certain incidents of the persecution of 
Diocletian, of which our knowledge is derived from it 
alone, this work ought, in virtue of the number and 
accuracy of its dates, to serve as a valuable supplement to 
the History. But there is an initial difficulty to be over 
come. If we except one passage of the Greek recension, 
which seems to have been copied from the History? and 
has no parallel in the Syriac, the chronology of the 
Martyrs is expressed, not in terms of the regnal years of 
the Emperors, but in terms of the years of the persecution. 
The customary formula in its most complete form is seen, 
for example, at the beginning of chap. 6 : rera/oro) ye JJL^V TOV 

1 Dictionary of Christian Biogmphy, ii. 320 f. See also below, 
pp. 279-283. 

2 M. P. (Grk.) Pref. Cp. H. E. viii. 2. 4, 5. 


ere* 8ia>y/JLov, TT/OO 
7) ytvoiT* av nqvos Aiov ciicdSi, wpoa-appdrov fjfJLtpa, KT\. ; 
for which we have in the Syriac, 1 It was in the fourth 
year of the persecution in our days, and on Friday the 
twentieth of the latter Teshri, &c. What did Eusebius 
mean by a year of the persecution ? On what days of 
the year, according to our reckoning, did such a year 
begin and end ? This is a question to which we must 
find an answer if we are to understand the chronology of 
the persecution. 

It will be admitted that the most obvious assumption is 
that the first year covered a period of twelve months, 
counted from the actual outbreak of the persecution, and 
that each of the later years covered a like period, and 
began in the same month of our reckoning. This assump 
tion, indeed, does not supply a full answer to our question, 
for the outbreak of the persecution is variously dated. 
According to Lactantius 2 the first edict of Diocletian 
against the Christians was issued February 24, 303, the 
persecution having actually begun on the previous day ; 
Eusebius, in H. E. viii. 2, places the publication of the 
edict in March, 3 and in M. P. (Grk.) Pref., in April, of the 
same year. These dates may perhaps be reconciled. But 
a mere reconciliation of the dates cannot determine 
whether Eusebius s persecution-years began in February, 
in March, or in April. 4 But I hope to be able to show 
that discussion of that problem is superfluous. 

The possibility of finding an answer different from this, 
and perhaps more satisfactory, was suggested to the present 

1 Cureton, p. 19. a De Mort. Pers., 12 f. 

3 So also in the Chronica, ed. Schoene, ii. 189. 

4 Mr. M c Giffert holds that Eusebius dated the beginning of the 
persecution-years sometimes before, sometimes after, April 2, though 
always in April. But why not in March ? See his note on M. P. 7. 1, 
in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. i, p. 348. 


writer by a short but illuminating discussion by Mr. C. H. 
Turner of the meaning of regnal years in Eusebius, which 
was printed in an early number of the Journal of Theolo 
gical Studies. 1 The conclusion at which Mr. Turner 
arrives is, that the beginning of a regnal year was inde 
pendent of the actual day of accession of the emperor, 
and that it was in all cases regarded by Eusebius as 
falling in the month of September. What if it should 
prove that the starting-point of the persecution-years 
was likewise independent of the actual date of the 
outbreak of the persecution ? Once this hypothesis is 
admitted as possible, some of the arguments urged by 
Mr. Turner in favour of his theory, that all regnal years 
in Eusebius began in September, might be used to prove 
that persecution-years began in the same month. It will 
be found, however, if I am not mistaken, that the latter 
conclusion is inconsistent with the facts. 

The validity of both these suggestions must be tested by 
an appeal to the text of the Martyrs. But a word may 
first be said as to the method of indicating dates in the 
two recensions. The Greek has a double notation. First 
the date is given in the ordinary Roman fashion, count 
ing backwards from Kalends, Nones, and Ides, the Roman 
names of the months being used. Then it is given in the 
style to which we are accustomed, counting forwards from 
the first day of the month, the Roman names being 
replaced by the names of the Macedonian months which 
correspond to them. In the Syriac, only the second of 
these methods is used ; and instead of the Macedonian 
names we find what the translator regarded as their 
Syriac equivalents. Thus the martyrdom of Procopius 
(June 7) is dated in the Greek (1. 2) vii. id. Jun. = Daesius 

* Vol. i, pp. 188 ff. 


7, while in the parallel passage of Syriac it is dated 
Khaziran 7. 

Now the year which has the largest number of martyr 
doms is the seventh. The Greek does not mark the point 
at which we pass from the sixth year to the seventh, though 
it indicates that, so far as the proceedings at Caesarea are 
concerned, the record of those two years extends from 
chap. 8 to chap. II. 1 But in the Syriac two successive 
passions are headed respectively, The confession of Ares, 
and Primus, and Elias, in the sixth year of the persecution 
in our days at Ashkelon, and The confession of Peter, 
who was surnamed Absalom, in the seventh year of the 
persecution in our days in the city of Caesarea . 2 These 
two passions correspond to the two sections of the tenth 
chapter of the Greek. It maybe assumed, therefore, that 
chapter 10, 2, and chapter 1 1 of the Greek text contain 
the narrative of the seventh year at Caesarea. The 
martyrdom of Peter, then, is the first recorded as belong 
ing to the seventh year. It is dated in the Greek 
Audinaeus 11 = 3 id. Jan. (i.e. January 11), and in the 
Syriac Conun 10 (i. e. January 10). The last martyrdom 
of the year is that of Peleus 3 and his companions. The 
Syriac dates it Elul 19 ; and as Elul included the greater 
part of September with a portion of October, we may 
interpret this to mean September 19. It is true that in the 
Greek this martyrdom is without date ; but there is at 
any rate nothing in the context at variance with the date 
given in the Syriac. 4 Thus we see that the seventh year 

1 See 8. 1 ; 13. 1. 2 Cureton,p. 34 f. 

3 M. P. (Grk.) 13. 1-3 ; Cureton, p. 46. This is the correct form of 
the name. See Eus. H. E. viii. 13. 5. The Syriac calls him Paulus. 

4 It is necessary to emphasize this, because the opening words of 
the chapter have sometimes been mistranslated The seventh year 
of our conflict was completed , the martyrdom of Peleus being thus 


of the persecution began before January 11, and ended 
after September 19. This fact puts out of court the hypo 
thesis that the persecution-years began on or near the 
anniversary of the promulgation of the first edict of 
Diocletian. We cannot regard any date in February, 
March, or April as the first day of such a year : it must 
have begun between September 19 and January 11. 
This, of course, still leaves open the possibility that it ran 
from September to September. Let us see then whether 
its beginning may be determined within narrower limits. 

The first dated martyrdom in the sixth year that of 
Khatha and Valentina took place on July 25, ac 
cording to both recensions l ; the last that of Ares 
and others again according to both recensions, on 
December 14. 2 The beginning of the year cannot have 
been in September. It must have commenced between 
December 14 and January 11. If we conclude that the 
normal persecution-year of Eusebius was simply the 
ordinary Roman year, which began on January 1 and 
ended on December 31, we cannot be astray by more than 
a few days. 

The conclusion being thus reached that the beginning 
of the persecution-years, according to Eusebius, was on 
or about January 1, and as a consequence that they 
approximately coincided with years of our A.D. reckoning, 
the solution of a further problem may be attempted : 
With what year of our era did each several persecution- 
year synchronize ? A consideration of the account given 

apparently thrown into the eighth year. They should rather be ren 
dered was approaching completion (^i/u fro), which suits one of the 
later months of the seventh year. It is not implied that the events 
narrated in the immediate sequel belonged to the eighth year. 

1 M. P. (Grk.) 8. 12 ; Cureton, p. 31. 

2 M. P. (Grk.) 10. 1 ; Cureton, p. 34. The Greek does not give the 
number of the year. 


of the passion of Apphianus, or, as the Syriac calls him, 
Epiphanius, 1 and of the context which leads up to it, 2 
supplies us with the answer to our question. After men 
tioning the abdication of Diocletian and Maximian, 
Eusebius proceeds to describe the renewal of the persecu 
tion after the accession of Maximin, and the consterna 
tion which as a result fell upon the Christians of Palestine. 
Apphianus appears to have been the first victim of his 
fury at Caesarea. After proceedings which must have 
occupied at least several days more probably some weeks 
Apphianus was seized, imprisoned, tortured, brought 
three times before the judge, and finally cast into the sea. 
The date is given in both recensions as April 2, in the 
third year of the persecution. Now we learn from 
Lactantius 3 that the abdication of Diocletian took place 
on May 1, 305. The earliest possible date for the martyr 
dom is therefore April 2, 306. It could not have been 
April 2, 307, for on no possible hypothesis could the year 
307 have been reckoned as the third of the persecution. 
It follows therefore that A.D. 306 was the third persecu 

It may indeed be suggested that Eusebius was in error 
as to the date of the abdication, and supposed that it 
occurred before April 2, 305. It is in fact probable that 
he did not know the day on which it happened. For he 
dates it vaguely. At this time , 4 he writes, a change of 

1 Apphianus is correct, since another Syriac version of his passion 
has Appianus. See S. E. Assemani, Acta SS. Martt. Orient, et Occident., 
Rome, 1748, vol. ii, p. 189. So also the Greek fragment of the longer 
recension printed in Schwartz, ii. 912. 

2 M.P. (Grk.) 3. 5-4. 15 ; Cureton,pp. 12 ff. 

3 De Mort. Pers. 19. Lactantius in the context exhibits minute 
knowledge of the movements of Diocletian at this period, and his 
dates cannot reasonably be doubted. See chaps. 12-14, 17. 

4 v rovTff. See H. E. iii. 18. 1 ; 21 ; iv. 1 ; 15. 1 ; 30. 3 ; v. 13. 
1 ; vi. 7 ; 8. 1, 7 ; 18. 1 ; 21. 2 ; 27 ; 31. 1 ; vii. 1 ; 14. 1 ; 27. 1 ; 28. 3 


rulers took place/ This is the more remarkable inasmuch 
as in the Martyrs Eusebius seems to avoid indefinite notes 
of time. 1 Diocletian abdicated, and Maximin was in 
vested with the purple, at Nicomedia. 2 Even if the latter 
had armed himself for persecution the very next day, 
some time would be required for the preparation of his 
instructions to the provincial governors, and proceedings 
could not have begun at Caesarea till at least a few days 
after they were dispatched. 3 To this period must be 
added the interval between the appearance of Apphianus 
before Urban and his execution on April 2. If Eusebius 
took account of all this his error must have been very 
considerable. He must have put the abdication and the 
subsequent action of the governor at Caesarea six weeks 
or two months too early. Is it likely that he was so much 
astray about the date of an event which cannot but have 
impressed itself vividly on his memory ? But that is not 
all. For there can be no doubt that the martyrdom in 
actual fact followed the accession of Maximin, and did 
not precede it. That is not only stated by the historian ; 
it is implied throughout the entire narrative. If, to relieve 
ourselves of the necessity of placing the martyrdom of 
Apphianus in the year 306, we assume that Eusebius ante 
dated the abdication, we must therefore also assume that 
he antedated the martyrdom: a second improbability 
which is not easy to be got over. Moreover, it is quite 
certain that in whatever month he supposed the abdication 
to have occurred he assigned it to the second year of the 

31. 1 ; viii. 6. 6, &c. In all these places the phrase may be rendered 
at this period . 

1 Those in Pref. ad fin. and 1. 3 occur in quotations from H. E. viii. 
Those in chap. 5 were apparently inevitable. 

2 Lactantius, De Mort. Pers. 17 ; Eus., Chron. ed. Schoene, ii. 189. 

3 The first edict of Diocletian against the Christians, of February 24, 
303, did not reach Caesarea, as it seems, till April. M. P. (Grk.) Pref. 


persecution, 1 and the martyrdom of Apphianus to the third. 
If therefore the former took place in 305 (and Eusebius 
cannot have put it in the wrong year) the latter must belong 
to 306. And finally there is some evidence that in the 
early months of the reign of Maximin his dominions were 
comparatively free from persecution. He himself tells us 
that when he first came into the East he did not use 
severity towards the Christians. 2 And Lactantius uses 
language which seems to imply that at this period he 
forbade them to be put to death. For the peace which 
the Church enjoyed from May to October 311 reminds 
him of a similar period of rest earlier in Maximin s reign, 
to which he does not elsewhere allude. 3 All this harmo 
nizes well with the long interval by which Eusebius, as 
we have interpreted him, separates his appointment as 

1 H. E. viii. 13. 10 ; App. 2 ; Chron. ed. Schoene, ii. 189. 

2 H. E. ix. 9. 15-17. Commenting on this passage Dr. Mason says 
(Persecution of Diocletian, 1876, p. 335) that no Turk ever lied more 
shamelessly . But even Sultans do not utter falsehoods when there is 
no likelihood that their falsehoods will deceive any one. Maximin, no 
doubt, lied ; but his lies must have had such a semblance of truth as 
to encourage the hope that they would be believed by a good many 
of the Christians of Asia Minor and Syria. That would have been 
impossible if after his accession the fourth edict had not been 
allowed to fall into abeyance in those regions for a season. Compare 
below, pp. 232 ff. 

3 De Mort. Pers. 36. 6, speaking of the period following the death 
of Galerius (May 311), Facere autem parabat quae iamdudum in 
Orientis partibus fecerat. Nam cum clementiam specie tenus pro- 
fiteretur, occidi seruos Dei uetuit, debilitari iussit. On the other hand 
the Syriac recension of M. P. ignores the clemency, such as it was, 
shown to the Christians at the beginning of Maximin s reign. He is 
said to have gone forth, * even from his very commencement, to fight, 
as it were, against God (Cureton, p. 12). No facts, however, are 
alleged in support of this statement. It will be observed that 
Eusebius is quite explicit about the absolute immunity of the Chris 
tians from persecution for part of the year 311 (H. E. ix. 1. 7 ff. ; 2. 1), 
while Lactantius will admit no more than that for a time Maximin 
abstained from open infliction of the death penalty. 


Caesar from the first martyrdom which, took place under 
his rule at Caesarea. "We may conclude then that the 
third year of the persecution coincided with A. D. 306. 

There are similar indications that the second year co 
incided with A. D. 305. It is sufficient for our purpose to 
repeat the remark already made, that Eusebius states in 
unambiguous language that the abdication, the approxi 
mate date of which he must have known, occurred in the 
second year of the persecution. 

If we have argued correctly thus far, the third year of 
the persecution must have ended about December 31, 306, 
the second about December 31, 305, and the first about 
December 31, 304. This is certainly an unexpected result. 
For the actual beginning of the persecution at Nicomedia 
is dated by Lactantius February 23, 303, and Eusebius 
represents it to have commenced in other parts of the 
Empire in March or April of the same year. 1 The first 
year must therefore have been a period, not of twelve, 
but of at least twenty months. 2 The tenth year , on 
the same computation, began January 1, 313 ; and as it 

1 Lact. De Mort. Pers. 12 ; Eus. H. E. viii. 2.4; M. P. (Grk.) Pref. 

2 In other words, a considerable part of 303 is reckoned by Eusebius 
as belonging to 304. In like manner the period between the accession 
of an Emperor and the following September was regarded by him as 
belonging to the first regnal year, which in strictness began in the 
latter month. Dr. Carleton makes the interesting suggestion that 
Eusebius, in thus making a persecution-year or a regnal year include 
a period prior to its nominal beginning, may have been influenced by 
a rule of the Metonic Cycle, in the adaptation of which to ecclesi 
astical purposes he took a leading part. In that cycle a lunation was 
conceived as belonging to the year in which it ended. Thus the 
twelfth lunation of the tenth year of the cycle ended December 3. 
The following lunation, because it ended on January 2, was held to 
belong to the eleventh year. So a Julian year, nominally beginning 
on January 1, might include nearly a month prior to January 1. Se& 
S. Butcher, The Ecclesiastical Calendar, its theory and construction, 
Dublin, 1877, pp. 61 ff. 


ended with the edict of Maximin, probably in September 
or October, 1 it included about ten months. 

It may be well, however, at this point, to anticipate a 
possible objection. We have relied on the accuracy of the 
texts, Greek and Syriac, in regard to chronological data. 
But it may be urged that their dates are demonstrably 
inaccurate in some places. I do not think that much stress 
will be laid on a few passages in which the two recensions 
are inconsistent with each other. Of this we have several 
examples. Alphaeus and Zacchaeus were beheaded, and 
Romanus was burned at the stake, according to the Greek 
on November 17, according to the Syriac on November 7 ; 2 
Domninus was given to the flames according to the Greek 
on November 5, according to the Syriac on November 1 ; 3 
Peter, called Apselamus (Absalom), suffered according to 
the Greek on January 11, according to the Syriac on 
January 10. 4 But such slight discrepancies are not more 
serious or more numerous than might be expected in two 
independent texts, each of which has suffered to some 
extent at the hands of transcribers. In all cases one of 
the dates is almost certainly what Eusebius held to be 
correct ; and whichever be accepted as his, our argument 
is unaffected. 

Another class of passages demands more consideration. 
Four times in the Greek, and once in the Syriac, a date 
is denned not only by the year, the month, and the day 
of the month, but also by the day of the week. Let us 
examine the passages. 

1 Eus. H. E. ix. 10. For the date see below, p. 227. 

2 M. P. (Grk.) 1. 5 ; 2. 1 ; Cureton, p. 6. The Syriac version of 
this passion edited by S. E. Assemani, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 177, has Novem 
ber 17. The Greek is therefore in this case almost certainly correct. 

3 M. P. (Grk.) 7. 3 f. ; Cureton, p. 24. 

4 M.P. (Grk.) 10. 2 ; Cureton, p. 35. With the latter agrees 
Assemani s Syriac version, op. cit., ii. 208. 


The Greek text, after stating that the martyr Apphianus 
was drowned on April 2 of the third year of the persecution, 
adds that the day was Friday. 1 We have used this date to 
prove that 306 was the third year of the persecution ; and 
it is therefore important for our theory. Now April 2 is 
Friday only in a year whose Sunday letter is C (or a leap 
year whose Sunday letters are DC). But the Sunday 
letter of 306 is F, and in it April 2 was Tuesday. Thus, if 
the date is correct, our theory cannot be maintained. It is 
true that the Syriac gives no support to the statement that 
Apphianus suffered on Friday ; and so it may be that the 
note in the Greek is due, not to Eusebius, but to a scribe 
who desired to indicate a parallel between his passion and 
that of Christ. But there is no need for such a suggestion. 
The fact is, that the only years falling within the period of 
the persecution which have the Sunday letter C are 303 
and 308; and on no scheme of the chronology could 
April 2 in either of those years be counted as belonging to 
the third persecution-year. "We must, therefore, make 
our choice between rejecting the day of the week in the 
Greek text, and rejecting the day of the month in both 
Greek and Syriac. Here the Syriac comes to our aid. 
In it we read, Such was the termination of the history of 
Epiphanius, on the second of the month Nisan, and his 
memory is observed on this day. 21 Thus contemporary 
tradition confirms the date April 2. This is decisive in 

1 TjfJ-fpq TrapavKfvris. M. P. (Grk.) 4. 15. 

2 Cureton, p. 17. So also Assemani s Syriac (op. cit., ii. 189). The 
underlying Greek, as printed by Schwartz (ii. 918), which also omits 
the words ypepq Trapao-Kevfjs, runs, TOIOVTOV 8fj reXovs TO Kara rov 
Oavpdaiov Kw^iavov erv^e bpap.a SavdiKov fj-rjvbs (Seurepa) npo 8 va>v5>v 
ATrpiXXiW 17 ToOSe pvrjtJLri reXctrat. It has been suggested by H. Browne 
in his Ordo Saedorum, London, 1844, p. 535 f. ( 479), that Eusebius 
has confounded the date of the martyr Apphianus s first hearing. 
Tuesday, April 2, with the date of his martyrdom on the third day 
following, i. e. Friday, April 5 . 


favour of the supposition that the words fjjtepa Tra/oacr/ceur}? 
are an incorrect gloss, whether of Eusebius or another. 

But again, the Greek and the Syriac agree in dating 
the death of Agapius on November 20, the birthday of 
the Emperor Maximin, in the fourth year (307, according 
to the theory here advocated) ; and once more the Greek 
adds that the day was Friday. 1 This requires the Sunday 
letter D (or ED), while the Sunday letter of 307 is E. 
But the first year after 302 which has the Sunday letter D 
is 313 ; 2 and by November 20, 313, the persecution was 
over. Since there is no reasonable ground for doubting 
that November 20 3 was observed as Maximin s birthday, 
the phrase of the Greek, irpovappdrov r)jj.epa, must once 
more be rejected as unhistorical. 4 

The next date to be considered is that of the martyrdom 
of Procopius, which both recensions assign to June 7 in 
the first year, the Greek adding that it was on the fourth 

1 M. P. (Grk.) 6. 1 ; Cureton, p. 19. 

2 Not counting 308, which has D in January and February only. 

3 We might have expected May 1, the day of Maximin s accession. 
But by substituting May 1 for November 20 we do not get rid of our 
difficulty, for the former falls on the same day of the week as the 
latter. Dodwell (Dissertationes Cyprianicae, Oxford, 1684, p. 322) 
plausibly suggests that Maximin observed Diocletian s day as his 

4 Browne (ubi sup.) writes : I understand it thus : November 20 
(Wednesday) the martyr was thrown to the wild beast. Dreadfully 
mangled, he was taken back to his prison, and there lingered one 
whole day. On the day after that he was cast into the sea (i. e. 
Friday). Eusebius again throws together the month-date noted in the 
Roman Acta, and the week-date of the Passion. Thus he concludes 
that Agapius was martyred in 306, in which November 22 was Friday. 
But both Greek and Syriac imply that he was cast into the sea the 
day following his contest in the arena, not two days after it. If 
Browne s suggestion as to the source of Eusebius s error is correct, the 
date of the martyrdom is November 21, which was Friday, not in 306, 
but in 307, the year to which by independent reasoning we have 
assigned it. 


day of the week. 1 On our theory this might mean either 
June 7, 303, or June 7, 304. But it can be proved that 
June 7, 303, is intended. For the martyrdoms of Alphaeus, 
Zacchaeus, and Romanus are said to have taken place on 
November 17 in the first year, and they are definitely 
connected with the vicennalia of Diocletian, which imme 
diately followed them. 2 But the vicennalia were cele 
brated November 20, 303. 3 Now the martyrdom of 
Procopius must have been earlier than those just men 
tioned, not merely because it precedes them in our texts, 
but because Procopius is stated to have been the first of 
the Palestinian martyrs. 4 But in 303 the 7th June was 
not Wednesday, but Monday. Clearly, either June 7 or 
Wednesday is an error. 5 

1 M. P. (Grk.) 1.2; Cureton, p. 4. 

2 M. P. (Grk.) 1. 5; 2. 1, 4; Cureton, pp. 4 if. 

3 Lactantius, De Mort. Pers. 17. Mason, following Hunziker, 
thinks that this date is due to a blunder of Lactantius or of a scribe, 
and that the true date is not 12 Kal. Dec., but 12 Kal. Jan. = 21 
December. (A. J. Mason, The Persecution of Diocletian, Cambridge, 
1876, p. 205.) But he relies mainly on two rescripts in the Codex of 
Justinian (II. iii. 28 ; IV. xix. 21) which seem to have been incorrectly 
dated. See Mommsen in the Abhandlungen der konigl. AJcademie der 
Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1860, pp. 357, 372, 437 f. It is somewhat 
to our purpose, however, to observe that in an argument based on 
Eusebius s account of the sufferings of Romanus he appears to have 
misapprehended the facts. He says that Romanus had his tongue cut 
out on November 17, and contends that the three days that would 
elapse between Romanus s mutilation and the 20th of November could 
hardly be called TrXeio-roy ^p<W [see M. P. (Grk.) 2. 4]. This implies 
that he died on the day of the vicennalia. But what Eusebius says 
is that after his mutilation, for which no date is given, he suffered 
a long imprisonment, and died November 17, TT}S apxiKTJs elKoo-afrrjpidos 
TTi(TTa(Tr]s. This, so far from furnishing an argument against the date 
given by Lactantius, actually confirms it. For the phrase just quoted 
is inconsistent with the supposition that five weeks intervened between 
the martyrdom and the vicennalia. 

4 M. P. (Grk.) 1. 1 ; Cureton, p. 3. 

5 The Latin version of the passion of Procopius, which, like the 


Finally, both Greek and Syriac give April 2 in the fifth 
year as the day of the martyrdom of Theodosia. 1 The 
Syriac declares that it was Sunday; and the Greek 
addition may have the same meaning kv avrfj KvpiaKfi 
fjpepa 777? rov 2<*>Trjpos f)fj,a)i> dvao Tdcr<o$. But both recen 
sions are certainly incorrect. Twice during the persecu 
tion did April 2 fall on a Sunday in 304 and 310. But 
no part of either of these years can have coincided with 
the fifth persecution-year. This example is interesting, 
because the agreement of the Syriac and the Greek makes 
it highly probable that the error originated with Eusebius 
himself. 2 

Thus every one of these four dates is incorrect. And 
not only is each by itself proved to be erroneous, but they 
are also inconsistent with one another. It is impossible 
that a year in which April 2 fell on Friday could be 
followed by a year in which November 20 fell on Friday, 
or that it in turn should be followed by a year in which 
April 2 fell on Sunday. 

Syriac, does not mention the day of the week, gives the date as Desii 
septima Julii mensis, quae nonas Julias dicitur apud Latinos \ 
(Cureton, p. 50 ; Ruinart, Ada sine., Amsterdam, 1713, p. 353.) And it 
so happens that July 7, 303, was Wednesday. But the text is evidently 
corrupt, for Desii is transliterated from the Greek, and is the 
Macedonian equivalent of June. Thus the Latin is a fresh witness for 
the date June 7. On Browne s principle it might be conjectured that 
the arraignment was on Monday, June 7, and the martyrdom on 
Wednesday, June 9. But Greek, Syriac, and Latin all leave the im 
pression that Procopius was brought before Flavian immediately after 
his arrival at Caesarea, and having declined to make a libation to the 
Emperors was on the same day (aunVa) put to death. 

1 M.P. (Grk.) 7. 1 ; Cureton, p, 22 f. 

2 Browne (ubi sup.}, in his attempt to account for the error in this 
date, asserts that April 2 fell on Friday in 307, and places the martyr 
dom in that year. In fact, April 2 was Friday in 308, the year to 
which we have assigned it. The Syriac seems to imply that the pro 
ceedings occupied more than one day ; and the suggestion that 
Theodoric was arraigned on Friday, April 2, and executed on Sunday 
is possibly right. 


Are we to conclude then that the dates in the Martyrs 
&re too untrustworthy to be used for our purpose ? That 
is not a necessary conclusion. For in two, if not three, 
cases out of the four which have been examined we have 
seen reason to believe that the month-day is correct and 
only the week-day at fault. And it is on the month- days 
alone that our argument rests. Now there are fourteen 
dates reported in both recensions. In every instance the 
Greek and the Syriac are in agreement as to the month ; 
in only three cases they differ as to the day of the month, 
and that but slightly. This is a sufficient guarantee that 
the dates which Eusebius wrote have been preserved to us 
in both recensions where they agree, in one or other of 
them where they differ. And it must be remembered that 
our argument is based only on the belief which Eusebius 
held as to the dates of the several martyrdoms which he 
records, not on the actual facts. Its validity is in no way 
affected if some or all of Eusebius s dates should prove to 
be historically inaccurate. 

Nevertheless, recognizing the possibility of textual error 
in some of the dates which we have used, we may notice 
some further considerations which tend to confirm our 

We take first two passages which have been used 
already. The date of the martyrdom of Peter Apselamus 
has been referred to as indicating that persecution -years 
began before January 11 ; but for placing it in the 
seventh year we were obliged to rely on the Syriac alone. 
It is therefore worth observing that the next series of 
events recorded is the trial and death of Pamphilus 
and those who suffered with him. 1 It cannot be doubted 
that Eusebius assigned this group of martyrdoms to the 
seventh year. Not only is this directly stated in the 
1 M. P. (Grk.) 11 ; Cureton, pp. 36 ff. 


Syriac : both Greek and Syriac add that the martyrs had 
been imprisoned for two full years , or about two years 
before their trial. 1 The latter assertion must be discussed 
later. For the present it may suffice to say that it is 
inexplicable if Pamphilus was imprisoned in the fifth, 2 
and brought to trial in the sixth year of the persecution. 
Moreover, after a parenthetic chapter which follows the 
recital of the passion of Pamphilus, Eusebius makes the 
remarkable statement that the seventh year was approach 
ing completion . 3 But the arraignment of Pamphilus is 
dated in both recensions February 16. Hence that day 
is the latest on which this narrative allows us to place the 
beginning of a persecution-year. 

Eusebius dates the martyrdom of Timolaus and others 
March 24 in the second year, 4 and, as we have seen, 
places the abdication of Diocletian in the same year. 
If he agreed with Lactantius that the date of the latter 
incident was May 1, the supposition that a persecution- 
year began between March 24 and May 1 is excluded. 
Again, if we suppose the first persecution-year to have 
begun earlier than March 25, 303, and each year to have 
consisted of twelve months, it is impossible that the 
martyrdom of Timolaus could have been in the second 
year, unless we place it in 304, which can hardly be done, 
due regard being had to the statements of Eusebius. 5 
And one other remark must be made. It is implied 
both in the Syriac and in the Greek that Timothy 

1 M. P. (Grk.) 11. 5 ; Cureton, p. 40. 

3 M. P. (Grk.) 7. 6 ; Cureton, p. 25. 3 M. P. (Grk.) 13. 1. 

4 M. P. (Grk.) 3. 3f. ; Cureton, pp. 10 ff. (where Timolaus is called 

5 The narrative of Timolaus is followed by the assertion that at this 
time the Emperors abdicated. This does not permit us to separate the 
martyrdom from the abdication by more than a year (March 24, 304- 
May 1, 305). 



suffered in the second year, but before Timolaus and at 
Gaza. 1 And since the Syriac makes it plain that 
the praeses Urban was at Gaza when Timothy was 
executed, and both recensions represent him to have been 
at Caesarea during the festival at which Timolaus was 
condemned, there must have been a considerable interval 
between the two martyrdoms. The second year must 
therefore have been some way advanced by March 24, 305. 

In the fourth year we find but one martyrdom, that of 
Agapius, put to death on November 20. 2 If this event 
belongs to the close rather than to the earlier months of 
the year, it proves that the year ended after November 20. 

The record of the fifth year supplies two dates, April 2 
for the martyrdom of Theodosia, and November 5 (or 1) 
for the exile of Silvanus. 3 The former proves that the 
year began before April 2. After the latter date are placed 
many important events, 4 all of which apparently belonged 
to the same year. 5 Urban, the governor, adopted a fresh 
policy of greater cruelty towards the Christians, of which 
several examples are given ; 6 after an interval 7 came the 
imprisonment of Pamphilus, and finally, a little later, 8 

1 M. P. (Grk.) 3. 1 ; Cureton, p. 8 f. 

2 M.P. (Grk.) 6 ; Cureton, pp. 19 ff. 

3 M. P. (Grk.) 7. 1, 8 ; Cureton, pp. 22, 24. 

4 M. P. (Grk.) 7. 4-7 ; Cureton, p. 24 f. 

5 See M. P. (Grk.) 7. 1 ; 8. 1 ; Cureton, pp. 24, 26. That the im 
prisonment of Pamphilus belonged to the fifth year is again implied 
in M. P. (Grk.) 11. 5 ; Cureton, p. 40. 

6 The Greek prefixes to this statement the words pcff* 5v, but in 
the Syriac the order of events is different, and it is said that all these 
things and the banishment of Silvanus happened in the same day , 
and indeed in one hour . 

7 Syr., After all these things which I have described. There is no 
note of time in the Greek. 

8 Grk. i>6vs Koi OVK els paKpov rols Kara TOV Tlap.(j)i\ov Tfro\firjfj.fvois. 
Syr., * forthwith, and immediately, and without any long delay. The 


the deposition of Urban. It is not extravagant to demand 
at least a month for all this, and thus the end of the year 
is pushed forward to December. 

It may now be pointed out that our scheme of the 
chronology throws light on some statements about the 
course of the persecution inaugurated by the Emperor 
Diocletian. We may turn first to a passage near the 
close of the Greek recension of the Martyrs which has no 
counterpart in the Syriac. In it we are told l that in Italy, 
and the West generally, the persecution lasted not two 
complete years. The context informs us that peace in 
the West was brought about by the division of the 
Empire. What is meant is more clearly stated in a 
somewhat similar passage, H. E. viii. 13. 10 f., where 
the division is said to have followed immediately upon 
the abdication of Diocletian and Maximian. But the 
persecution began in February 303, and the abdication 
did not take place till May 1, 305. How does this 
period come to be described as not two complete years ? 
Probably because Eusebius had in view his arbitrary 
persecution-years, 2 the first of which lasted, as we have 
seen, twenty months. He simply means that peace was 
established in the West before December 31, 305. And 
so in the passage of his History referred to above, he puts 
the matter differently : OVTT<O 8 CIVTOLS TrjsToiaaSe Kivrjaeoos 
Sevrtpov eroy TrtTrXrjptoTO KT\. 

In a somewhat similar way we may perhaps explain 
Eusebius s comment on the final edict of toleration issued 
by Maximin, 3 that it was put forth not a complete year 

purpose of the writer is obviously to minimize the interval between 
the tyranny and the degradation of Urban. 

1 M. P. (Grk.) 13. 12 ra yap rot eVeKftva TWV SffiT/Xw/zei/coi , iraXt a, KrX., 

OV& oXoiy T(TIV dval TOIS TrpOOTOlff TOV StWy/JoC TOV 7TO\p.OV V 

2 This indeed is implied by the words rots 
8 H. E. ix. 10. 12. 


(ovS* 6\ov kviavTQv) after the ordinances against the 
Christians set up by him on pillars . This note seems to 
be a bungling inference from the words of the edict, which 
obviously referred to something quite different Last 
year (ro> Trapt\66vTi tvLavT<p) letters were sent to the 
governors of each province. * There is nothing in the 
phrase to exclude the supposition that the letters referred 
to were sent more than twelve months previously. But the 
interval between them and the edict was not a complete 
year , because it was made up of parts of two successive 
years, and did not include an unbroken calendar year. 

In general the phrase ( so many complete years was 
used by Eusebius to indicate a series of unbroken years, 
together with parts of the years preceding and following 
the series. Thus, having inferred from one statement of 
Josephus 2 that Pilate was sent to Judaea in 12 Tiberius, 
and from another 3 that he was recalled immediately before 
the Emperor s death, i.e. in 23 Tiberius, he states that he 
was in Judaea ten complete years , 4 viz. : 13-22 Tiberius, 
and portions of 12 Tiberius and 23 Tiberius. In the same 
way he states that Demetrius was bishop of Alexandria 
forty-three full years, meaning that he was appointed in 
10 Commodus, and died in 10 Severus, 5 and therefore held 
the bishopric for the 43 regnal years, 11 Commodus-9 
Severus, and for a short time before and after. And 
similarly when he says that he knew Meletius as a fugitive 
in Palestine in the time of the persecution for seven com 
plete years (40 0X019 erecnj/ eVra) 6 he indicates that he 
knew him during the whole course of the persecution 
until he himself left Palestine for Egypt early in the 
eighth year. 7 

1 H. E. ix. 10. 8. 2 Ant. xviii. 2. 2. 3 Ib. 4. 2. 

4 H. E. i. 9. 1 f. 5 H. E. v. 22 ; vi. 26. c H. E. vii. 32. 28. 

7 See M. P. (Grk.) 13. 8. 


More difficult to explain is the remark that Pamphilus 
and his companions were in prison for two complete years 
(era>j> Sveiv oX&v XP^ OJ/ ) before their final examination. 1 
For Pamphilus was arrested under the praeses Urban 
not earlier than November 308 ; 2 and he was brought before 
Firmilian February 16, 310. This period of fifteen 
months included one unbroken persecution-year (309), 
and parts of two others. It might therefore, according 
to the usage of which examples have been given, be de 
scribed as one complete year , or not two complete years , 
but not as two complete years . The simplest hypothesis 
seems to be that the word * complete is a later insertion. 
It is absent from the Syriac ( about two years ), 3 and also 
from an extant Greek fragment of the longer recension. 4 

One further remark remains to be made. "When the 
dates of the events recorded in the Martyrs of Palestine 
are noted and compared, we are at once struck with 
the intermittent character of the persecution at least in 
Caesarea. It was very far from being, as it is sometimes 
pictured, a reign of terror which continued everywhere 
in the East without cessation for ten years or more. 
The first edict of Diocletian against the Christians was 
issued February 24, 303. It reached Palestine six weeks 
or two months later. But no record of proceedings at 
Caesarea under its provisions has come down to us. For 
it might plausibly be argued that the protomartyr, Pro- 
copius, who suffered in June 303, was arrested, not in 
consequence of this edict, but under the ordinary law : 

1 M.P. (Grk.)ll. 5. 

2 M. P. (Grk.) 7. 5 f. ; Cureton, p. 25. 

3 Cureton, p. 40. 

4 Printed from four MSS. Analecta Bolland. xvi. 129 ff., and by 
Schwartz underneath his shorter Greek text. It reads here dveiv eVoii/ 
Xpovov for e r. 8 


certainly sentence of death was passed upon him on 
account of language which was regarded as insulting to 
the Emperors. 1 It appears, however, that in the latter 
part of the year active measures were taken against the 
Christian clergy under the second edict provoked, it 
may be, by the somewhat extravagant conduct of Pro- 
copius. The result of these proceedings was a large 
number of imprisonments, the infliction of tortures in 
many cases, and two martyrdoms on November 17, 303. 2 
But after this there appears to have been a lull for fifteen 
or sixteen months. We hear of no martyrdoms and no 
acts of violence till March 305. It seems clear that 
throughout the Empire the rigour of the persecution must 
have largely depended on the anti-Christian zeal of the 
local authorities, and that the praeses who held office at 
Caesarea up to the end of 304 Flavian by name was 
not eager to exceed his duty in the enforcement of the 
imperial edicts. 

But if slackness of administration on the part of Fla 
vian accounts for the paucity of records of persecution 
in Palestine during the year 303, there was another 

1 M.P. (Grk.) 1.1; Cureton, p. 4. The first edict ordered the 
destruction of churches. Yet, if we may believe the statements of 
the Syriac recension, churches were still standing in or near Caesarea 
in 310 ; for the bodies of Pamphilus and his companions, we are told, 

1 were burie with honourable burial, as they were worthy, and were 
deposited in shrines [lit. houses of shrines] : and into the temples 
[i. e. the naves as distinct from the sanctuaries of the churches] they 
were committed, for a memorial not to be forgotten, that they might 
be honoured of their brethren who are with God. I owe the transla 
tion to the kindness of Dr. Gwynn. Cureton (p. 45) is inaccurate. 
The longer Greek runs thus : TTJS npoo-rjKovffrjs Tipfjs KOI Krjdeias Xdxovra, 
TTJ crvvrjdei TrapedoOr) raff)^, vaa>v OIKOIS Trepi/caXXeViy a-jroredevTa ev Ifpols re 
TTpoo-fVKTTjpiois els ii\r)(TTOV fJLvr]p.rjv raj TOv 6fov \a(3 ri/xaatfai TTapaSeSofieVa. 

2 M.P. (Grk.) 1. 3-5; Cureton, pp. 4-6. Somewhat earlier than 
this date we may probably put the so-called Third Edict (Bus. H. E. 
viii. 6. 10). See Mason, p. 206 f. 


circumstance which in combination with it explains their 
complete absence in 304, and which affected a much wider 
area. After celebrating his vicennalia Diocletian left 
Rome on December 19, 303. Shortly afterwards he con 
tracted a slight illness which developed into a serious 
disorder affecting both body and mind. For the greater 
part of his journey to Nicomedia he had to be carried in 
a litter, and so slowly did he travel that he did not reach 
that city till August. 1 Apparently for seven months after 
his arrival there he appeared in public only once, and 
then with grave consequences to his health. By the 
middle of December a rumour was current that he was 
dead, and this suspicion was only dispelled when in 
March 305 he ventured outside the palace, scarcely re 
cognizable after nearly a j^ear of sickness. 2 He was still 
afflicted with attacks of temporary insanity. 3 

During the greater part of that period Diocletian must 
have taken a very small share in the government of the 
Empire, and for at least the four months preceding 
March 305 he appears to have been wholly incapacitated. 
From beginning to end of his illness it is probable 
that not only Flavian, but all the other provincial 
governors in his dominions 4 were left to their own dis 
cretion as to the enforcement or relaxation of the laws 
against the Christians. If in 303 it was in the power of 
Flavian to be lenient towards them, in 304 and the early 
days of 305 there was no need for him to persecute at all. 

1 Aestate transacta , Lactantius. A rescript was issued in his 
name at Nicomedia, August 28, 304. Cod. lustin. iii. 28. 26. 

2 Vix agnoscendus quippe qui anno fere toto aegritudine tabuisset. 
The previous narrative implies that the illness had begun more than 
a year earlier. Probably therefore anno fere toto refers to the 
period during which Diocletian was completely laid aside. 

3 Lact. De Mort. Pers. 17. 

4 Viz. the Diocese of Pontus and the East, including Egypt. 


It is at any rate remarkable that the increased violence of 
the proceedings in March 305 is directly connected, both 
in the Greek and the Syriac, 1 with the advent of a new 
praeses, one Urban, and the issue of the fourth anti- 
Christian edict of Diocletian. 

But the argument may be carried somewhat further. 
Dr. Mason is probably right in supposing that the fourth 
edict, which has just been mentioned, was put forth by 
Maximian on the occasion of the ludi saeculares at Rome, 
in consequence of a popular outcry, and with the approval 
of the Senate, at the end of April 304. 2 Professor Gwatkin 
follows Dr. Mason with some hesitation ; 3 but he has 
difficulty in reconciling Diocletian s illness with the 
publication of the edict in Palestine. It was not all 
Maximiaii s doing, he writes. 4 Diocletian may not 
have been quite laid aside by illness till later in the 
year; and if so Maximian s edict would not have been 
carried out in Palestine if Diocletian had not been at 
least willing to try the experiment. The suggestion 
here apparently made, that Diocletian gave his consent 
to the edict some time between May and August, is not 
very easy to square with Lactantius s circumstantial 
account of the progress of his illness. But there is no 
need to make the attempt. As a matter of fact the fourth 
edict was not promulgated in Palestine till after Dio 
cletian s partial recovery. 5 He made his public appear- 

1 M. P. (Grk.) 3. 1 ; Cureton, p. 8. 

2 The Persecution of Diocletian, 1876, pp. 212 ff. 

3 Early Church History to A.D. 313, vol. ii, p. 336. He strengthens 
Mason s argument by a reference to Zosimus, ii. 7, for the ludi saecu 
lares of A.D. 304, and discusses a difficulty which Mason did not 

4 Ibid. p. 337. 

5 In the second year of the persecution (305), and some time before 
March 24. M. P. (Grk.) 3. 1, 4 ; Cureton, pp. 8 ff. 


ance on March 1. Within three weeks from that day the 
order went forth at Caesarea that all persons without 
exception in every city should offer sacrifice and make 
oblations to the idols . What is the meaning of all this ? 

Perhaps we may interpret it thus. During Diocletian s 
illness it was impossible to carry the new persecuting 
edict into operation in his dominions. But there was 
nothing to hinder it from being acted upon in the 
dominions of Maximian and Galerius. It was not an 
edict to which Diocletian would have readily given his 
consent. 1 But by the time it was possible for him to 
dissociate himself from a law which had doubtless been 
issued by his colleagues in his name, it was in active 
operation throughout half the Empire. Resistance on 
his part, which at an earlier stage might have been 
effective, had now become futile. Diocletian therefore 
gave his unwilling sanction to an accomplished fact, the 
edict was published in Palestine, a praeses was sent there 
who was willing to execute its provisions, and so the 
persecution began again with added horrors. 

Less than six weeks after the martyrdom of Timolaus 
and his seven companions Diocletian had ceased to be 
Emperor. His abdication is one of the enigmas of 
history. It was perhaps long contemplated, though there 
is little evidence to show that Diocletian s contemporaries 
drew from the magnificence of his buildings at Salona 
the inference which modern writers have based upon it. 2 
When it came it took men by surprise. It is obvious 
that if the design had been some time in existence its 

1 Lact. De Mart. Pers. 11. 8. 

2 e. g. Duruy, Roman Empire, Eng. Tr., vi. 2, p. 629 ; Gwatkin, op. 
cit., ii. 337. It has been argued from Lact. De Mart. Pers. 20. 4 ; 
Paneg. Vet. vi. 9 ; vii. 15, that the simultaneous retirement of the 
Augusti in Diocletian s twentieth year was included in his original 
scheme. But the inference is very precarious. 


accomplishment was achieved sooner than had been in 
tended. Why was the momentous decision so suddenly 
made ? The reason given to the general public at the 
time was Diocletian s ill health and his need of rest. 1 
And accordingly this explanation of the proceedings of 
May 1, 305, found its way into the pages of many early 
writers. 2 But the explanation of important acts of state 
craft vouchsafed to the multitude is not always the real 
one, and the allegations of Diocletian were not at the 
time accepted as the whole truth by men who had the 
best opportunities of judging. Lactantius 3 will have it 
that G-alerius bullied his master into resigning the purple, 
taking advantage of the opportunity which his infirmity 
offered. Eusebius in one place professes himself ignorant 
of the reason. 4 Aurelius Victor 5 holds that Diocletian 
was moved to retire by the belief that the Empire was 
threatened with calamity. 

Perhaps the facts now before us may suggest, if not the 
sole cause of the abdication, at least an element in the 
circumstances which must not be lost sight of as we try to 
understand it. Advantage had been taken of the incapa 
city of Diocletian to force the pace of the persecution. 
An edict had been issued which violated the principle on 
which he had insisted from the beginning, that in the 
effort to destroy the Church blood should not be shed. 
When therefore he was sufficiently recovered from his 
illness to take some part in public affairs he found him 
self in a pitiable position. If he continued to be Emperor 
he had to take his choice between insisting on the recall 

1 Lact. op. cit. 19. 3. 

2 Bus. H.E. viii. 13. 11 ; Const. Orat. 25 ; Paneg. Vet. vi. 9; Eutropius, 
Breviarium Hist. Rom. ix. 27. 

3 Op. cit. 18. 1-7. 4 V. C. i. 18. 
5 Caes. 39. 48. Cp. Lact. op. cit. 18. 15. 


of the fourth edict, or acquiescing in a policy of which 
he could not approve, and becoming a mere tool in the 
hands of his own Caesar and his fellow- Augustus. And 
what chance had a man, feeble in body and mind, of 
holding his own against a colleague like Galerius, who 
was ambitious and bloodthirsty, masterful and unscrupu 
lous ? As it was, Galerius compelled him to nominate as 
Caesars Maximin Daza and Severus, passing over Con- 
stantine whom, almost certainly, he had designated to 
the purple. 1 If he had power to do this, he had power 
to thwart Diocletian in other matters as well. It had 
in fact become impossible for Diocletian to continue to 
rule as first Augustus with honour to himself; and 
therefore he determined to resign his office with as little 
delay as might be. It is by no means impossible that 
he had already made up his mind to take this course 
when early in March he suffered the fourth edict to 
be put in force in the East. Aurelius Victor s notion 
that he foresaw disasters may not be altogether beside 
the mark. His own settled policy concerning the 
Christians had now been definitely abandoned ; and he 
declined to be responsible for the result. 

But to return. If Urban was more zealous than his 
predecessor, his activity was speedily checked. Eight 
martyrs were beheaded by his order on March 24, 305 ; 
but no act of persecution and no martyrdom is recorded 
after that day till the following year, when Maximin put 
forth an edict more severe than any that had preceded it, 2 
and as a result Apphianus was put to death, April 2, 306. 
It is evident that there was a cessation of persecution for 
the greater part of a year. This agrees well, as has been 

1 Lact. op. cit. 18. 8 ff. See also Gwatkin, op. cit. ii. 338. 

2 M. P. (Grk.) 4. 8; Cureton, p. 13 f. This seems to have been a 
republication of the fourth edict in a more stringent form. 


already pointed out, with the fact that Maximin became 
Emperor on May 1, 305, and that for some time after 
that date his policy was favourable to the Church. After 
wards, indeed, Maximin became a bitter persecutor, but 
the change in his attitude towards Christianity was pro 
bably gradual ; and Caesarea may very well have been 
unaffected by it till the spring of 306. 1 

It is surprising to find that the execution of Apphianus 
was succeeded by another long respite of a year and a 
half. 2 The next event recorded as having taken place 
at Caesarea was the martyrdom of Agapius, November 
20, 307. 3 On this occasion the revival of persecution was 
due to the presence of Maximin himself at Caesarea, and 
his desire to celebrate his birthday by a spectacle of an 
unusual kind. After the birthday games of Maximin the 
persecution seems to have been continued steadily, and 
with increasing violence, under Urban and his yet more 
ferocious successor Firmilian, until July 25, 309, the 
day of the martyrdom of the virgin Khatha, her com 
panion Valentina, and Paul at Gaza. 4 Then there was 
another intermission which for several reasons demands 
special attention. 

In the first place, it is the only cessation of persecution 

1 It is remarkable that in the History there is very little evidence 
that Maximin persecuted the Church before the death of Galerius in 
311. In H. E. viii. 14. 9 his violence against the Christians is coupled 
with his efforts to restore paganism, by rebuilding the temples and 
establishing a hierarchy. The rebuilding of the temples seems to 
have begun in November 309 (see below, p. 208) ; the formation of the 
hierarchy belongs to the end of 311 or later (H. E. ix. 2-4). 

2 This is not an argument e silentio. See Cureton, p. 19 : The next 
confessor after Epiphanius [Apphianus] who was called to the conflict 
of martyrdom in Palestine was Agapius. Cp. the longer Greek re 
cension, Schwartz, p. 920. The statement, it will be observed, is not 
limited to Caesarea. 

3 M. P. (Grk.) 6 ; Cureton, pp. 19 ff. 

* M. P. (Grk.) 8. 4-13 ; Cureton, pp. 26 if. 


to which Eusebius explicitly directs attention. Hitherto 
the fact that there were periods of comparative rest to the 
Church has been brought to light only by careful attention 
to the chronology. The historian makes no mention of 
any of them. A hasty reader might easily suppose that 
the persecution was continuous from the day when the 
first edict of Diocletian reached Palestine in April 303 to 
the month of August in the sixth year. But the most 
careless student of the Greek recension of the De Martyr- 
ibus cannot overlook the cessation of activity at which we 
have now arrived. Eusebius records it as follows : 

* After (or, as a result of) so many heroic acts l of the 
noble martyrs of Christ, the fire of the persecution having 
decreased, and being as it were in the course of being 
quenched by their holy blood, and release and liberty 
having been granted in the Thebaid to those who laboured 
for Christ s sake in the mines there, and we being about 
for a little while to breathe the pure air, &c. 2 

And yet this interval of peace upon which stress is thus 
laid was much shorter than the others which Eusebius 
passes over in silence. For three martyrs were sentenced 
to death no later than November 13, 309. 3 Thus the 
pause cannot have lasted much more than three months. 
Why, then, did Eusebius think it worthy of remark ? 
Probably because it was not limited to Caesarea or Pales 
tine, but extended throughout the whole of Maximin s 
dominions. That this was the case seems to be implied 
by the mention of the convicts of the Thebaid. And the 
universality of this breathing-space leads us to another 
inference. The brief respite was not due to the careless 
ness or apathy of provincial officials. Rather the persecu- 

2 M.P. (Grk.) 9. 1. It is also mentioned, but much more briefly, in 
the Syriac. Cureton, p. 31. 

3 M.P. (Grk.) 9. 5 ; Cureton, p. 32. 


tion ceased, as it was presently resumed, by the fiat of 
the Emperor himself. 

Eusebius is at a loss to explain the fresh outbreak of 
the persecution ; and the reason which he seems to suggest 
for its temporary abandonment will scarcely satisfy a his 
torian. But perhaps a sufficient account can be given of 
both. The time of rest ended with the issue of the * Fifth 
Edict . The summary of it which is given by Eusebius l 
leads one to think that it was differentiated from its fore 
runners mainly by increased stringency and brutality. 
But one of its clauses arrests attention : the imperial 
officers are commanded to rebuild the fallen temples. 
This indicates a change of policy. The persecution was 
no longer to be a mere effort to destroy Christianity by 
brute force, though brute force was still to be used. It 
was to be accompanied by a revival of paganism. And 
with this revival of the ancient religion the remaining 
provisions of the edict were not improbably closely asso 
ciated. We may believe that it was less with the purpose 
of embarrassing the Christians than to bring the heathen 
rites into closer relation with the daily lives of the mass 
of the people that such commands were given as Eusebius 
summarizes from his own standpoint : * That all men, as 
well as women and household servants, and even children 
at the breast, should sacrifice and perform libations, and 
that they should be made to taste the abominable sacrifices, 
and that things exposed for sale in the market should be 
defiled with the libations of the sacrifices, and that those 
who were making use of the baths should be defiled with 
the execrable sacrifices. It is evident, at any rate, that 
henceforth there was to be a contest, not merely of the 
State with the Church, regarded as a political danger, 
but of the old faith, aided by the State, with the new. 
1 M. P. (Grk.) 9. 2 ; Cureton, p. 31. 


We are at once reminded of the later attempt of Maximin, 
elsewhere recorded so like, and yet so unlike, that of 
Julian half a century afterwards to organize a new pagan 
hierarchy. 1 No doubt these two movements, for the build 
ing of temples and for the establishment of a heathen 
priesthood, were parts of the same general policy. 2 The 
temporary cessation of persecution was due to the recog 
nition by Maximin of the failure of the old policy ; it gave 
the time and leisure which were needed for the evolution 
of the new. 

After the issue of the Fifth Edict the persecution 
appears to have raged unceasingly at Caesarea for four 
months. It then ended as far as actual martyrdoms are 
concerned. For Eubulus, the last of the martyrs at 
Caesarea, was thrown to the beasts March 7, 310. 3 It was 
prolonged for a year in other parts of Palestine, where 
the Bishop Silvanus and his companions the final seal 
of the whole contest in Palestine were beheaded May 4, 
31 1. 4 This last martyrdom occurred four days after the 
publication of the palinodia of Galerius, 5 with which, 
as the final proclamation of peace for Palestine, the 
Greek recension of the De Martyribus fitly closed. 6 

Glancing back through this brief survey, we see that at 

1 Eus. H. E. viii. 14. 9 ; ix. 4. 2 ; Lact. De Mort. Pers. 36. 4. Cp. 
Eus. H. E. ix. 7. 7, 12. 

2 They are mentioned together in H. E. viii. 14. 9. 

3 M. P. (Grk.) 11. 30 ; Cureton, p. 45. 

4 M. P. (Grk.) 13. 5 ; Cureton, p. 48. The exact date is given in the 
Syriac only. 

6 April 30, 311. See Lact. De Mort. Pers. 35 ; Eus. H. E. viii. 17. 

6 The Greek recension of the DeMartyribus obviously implies that the 
palinodia brought the persecution to an end in Palestine. Our scheme 
of the chronology is therefore strongly confirmed by the fact that it 
makes the last martyrdom so nearly synchronize with it. The copy 
of the edict which originally followed M. P. (Grk.) 13 has disappeared 
from that place in the MSS. 

1353 P 


Caesarea the persecution took the form of five spasmodic 
onslaughts 1 on the Church, of which four were ushered in 
by imperial edicts, and the fifth by a visit of Maximin 
himself to Caesarea for the celebration of his birthday, 
and each of which was followed by a period of inactivity. 
The first lasted about six months, June to November 303. 
The second and third seem to have been very brief, and 
may be dated respectively March 305 and March-April 
306. The fourth was much the longest, continuing for 
about a year and eight months, November 307 to July 
309. The last embraced some five months, November 309 
to March 310. It ended about three years and a half 
before the final edict of toleration of Maximin. Even in 
the intervals which were free from martyrdoms, no doubt, 
there was persecution of a sort : the Christians were not 
allowed full liberty of worship, 2 and confessors who had 
been imprisoned were not released ; 3 but it is improbable 
that fresh arrests were made, or that Christians, as such, 
were examined by the magistrates. Thus the time of 
actual, whole-hearted persecution was limited. At Caesa 
rea, where the rigour of the government officials is not 
likely to have been less than in other places, all the 
periods of active persecution of the Faith taken together 
amounted to less than three years out of the ten years and 
a half which intervened between the first edict of Diocle 
tian and the last edict of Maximin. 

1 fTi-ai/ao-rao-eir, as Eusebius would have called them. See M. P. 
(Grk.) 4. 8. 

2 Yet see M. P. (Grk.) 13. 8 ; Cureton, p. 46. 

3 Pamphilus and his companions were kept in prison even during 
the cessation which procured liberty for the exiles in the Thebaid. 
M. P. (Grk.) 11.5 ; Cureton, p. 40. 


THE ninth book of the History is destitute of exact 
chronological data. It is the aim, however, of this paper 
to show that careful attention to the vague hints given by 
Eusebius and the documents quoted by him, and to the 
much more explicit information supplied by Lactantius, 1 
enables us to fix the dates of the principal events referred 
to with some degree of precision. The investigation may 
also provide material for a clearer account of the second 
persecution of Maximin than is given by either of our 

A few preliminary remarks are necessary. Some of our 
calculations, as will appear presently, are based on assump 
tions as to the time which the Emperor Maximin and his 
victorious rival Licinius may have occupied in transport 
ing their armies from one part of Asia Minor to another. 
Here two questions are involved. At what rate did a 
Roman army proceed on long marches ? And what dis 
tance would have been traversed by an army, about 
A. D. 300, in a march from, let us say, Antioch in Syria to 
Nicomedia ? 

Neither of these questions is easy to answer. The 
rapidity of advance must have depended to a considerable 
extent on the character of the roads, the time of year and 
other circumstances. Hence it is not surprising to find 
that the scanty evidence on this subject collected by 

1 See Appendix II to this Essay. 
p 2 


Dr. L. C. Purser 1 is unsatisfactory and to some extent con 
tradictory. But on the whole it seems to indicate an 
average speed on good roads (such as those of Asia Minor), 
and under normal conditions, of about eighteen Roman 
miles a day. Allowing for one day s rest in seven this 
would give us 108 Roman miles, or 100 English miles, 
a week. It may be remarked that Lactantius seems to 
imply that on one occasion Maximin actually did march 
eighteen miles in a day. 2 And the correctness of our hypo 
thesis is confirmed by the fact that its use in the present 
Essay leads to consistent results. 

The question as to the distance from Antioch to Nicome- 
dia is also a difficult one. The Antonine Itinerary might 
indeed be supposed to give us all the information we 
require. It states that the distance between the two places 
was 682 miles. But unfortunately the Itinerary, at any 
rate for Asia Minor, is not to be relied on. 3 We must 
actually measure the distances for ourselves on the best 
maps available. And in doing this we are obliged to 
make some assumption as to the route followed. Both 
route and distances from Antioch to Tyana, by Tarsus and 
the Gates of Cilicia, are easily determined. But it is less 
clear what road an army would have used in proceeding 
from Tyana to Nicomedia. The course which I have 
actually followed is this. I have measured the distances, 
from point to point, along the Byzantine Military Road, as 
traced by Sir "William Ramsay, 4 making use of his 
excellent maps. The organization 3 of this road is appa 
rently of later date than our period, 5 and it is not the 

1 See Appendix I. 

* From Perinthus-Heraclea to the next mansio. Lact. De Mort. 
Pers. 45. 6. 

3 See Ramsay, Historical Geography of Asia Minor, 1890, p. 66. 

4 Ibid, part ii, chap. G. p. 197 if. 6 Ibid. p. 200. 


shortest route from Tyana to Nicomedia. 1 But it pro 
bably followed, in the main, an older track; and the 
difference in length between it and the Pilgrims Road, 
described in the Itineraries, is not sufficient to affect our 
argument. 2 Along the Military Road we get the following 

measurements : 

English miles 

Nicomedia to Tyana 450 

Tyana to the Grates of Cilicia 46 

The Gates to Tarsus 27 

Tarsus, by Aegaeae, to Antioch, about 140 

Nicomedia to Antioch 660 

It may be added that similar measurements give us as the 
distance from Nicomedia to Chalcedon, 55 English miles. 3 

The ninth book of the Ecclesiastical History begins with 
a reference to the publication of the palinode of Galerius 
in Asia and the neighbouring provinces , 4 by which no 
doubt Eusebius means the Diocese of Asia, which with the 
Diocese of Pontus constituted the eastern dominions of 
Galerius. Since, according to Lactantius, 5 the edict was 
issued at Nicomedia on April 30, 311, it may be assumed 
that it was promulgated in Asia in May and came into the 
hands of Maximin in the same month. 6 Eusebius tells us 
that Maximin concealed the terms of the edict, but never- 

1 Ibid. p. 199. 

2 The distance by it from Nicomedia to Tyana, measured on 
Ramsay s maps, is about 440 miles, only some ten miles shorter than 
by the Military Road. For the whole distance from Nicomedia to 
Antioch the Itinerary gives 682 Roman miles, equivalent to about 630 
English miles. 

3 60 Roman miles, which is the distance given in the Itinerary. 

4 H. E. ix. 1.1. 5 De Mort. Pers. 35. 1. 

6 The imperial post travelled at the rate of about 120 Roman miles 
a day (Friedlander, Sittengeschichte Roms, vol. ii, p. 17). Thus it would 
reach Antioch from Sardica (1,150 miles) in about ten days. 


theless gave orders to the governors that the persecution 
of the Christians should cease. 1 The letter issued by 
Maximin s Praetorian Prefect, Sabinus, to the provincial 
governors is quoted, apparently in full. 2 It is evidently 
founded, so far as the preamble is concerned, on the edict 
of Gralerius ; but the operative clauses fall far short of the 
provisions of that document, merely directing, or permit 
ting, a suspension of active measures against the Church. 

The letter of Sabinus was misconstrued by the governors, 
who acted in excess of the powers conferred upon them, 
glad enough no doubt, in many cases, to be rid of an un 
pleasant duty. The imprisoned confessors were released, 
and Christians who were undergoing penal servitude at 
the mines were set at liberty. Those who had suffered for 
the faith returned to their homes, and assemblies were 
freely held as of old. It is obvious, if Eusebius may be 
trusted and he is not likely to have overstated the case 
that all believed that an era of peace had begun. 3 How 
ever, the expectation was doomed to disappointment. The 
Church had rest not six whole months . 4 In accordance 
with Eusebius s usage this phrase may be taken to mean 
a period of five calendar months, with portions of the 
months immediately preceding and following it. 5 Thus 
the resumption of persecution which followed it probably 
took place in November 311. This we may take as a 
second fixed date. 

It is not unimportant for our purpose to ask the question, 
why did Maximin allow the persecution to cease during 

1 H. E. ix. 1.1. 2 3-6. 

3 Ibid. 1. 7-11. Lactantius (36. 6f.) does not paint the picture in 
such glowing colours ; but he may include in his survey a later period 
when, according to Eusebius, the persecution had recommenced, 
though it had not reached its most violent stage. 

4 H. E. ix. 2. 1 ot> o\ovs fnl p.r]vas e. 

5 See above, p. 198. 


the period of six months that followed the edict of 
Galerius ? 

Licinius was with Galerius when he died at Sardica a 
few days after the publication of the palinode, and he was 
evidently designated to succeed to that Emperor s domi 
nions. 1 But in his effort to get possession of them he had 
to deal with a rival who was not only alert but, as it 
proved, for the moment successful. No sooner had tidings 
reached Maximin that Galerius was dead than he hurried 
up, as Lactantius tells us, 2 from the East probably from 
Antioch that he might occupy the provinces and, while 
Licinius was otherwise engaged (morante), secure for him 
self the whole region up to the straits of Chalcedon/ 
His aim was to forestall Licinius by at once possessing 
himself of the Dioceses of Pontus and Asia. With designs 
like this in hand it was plainly expedient not too quickly 
to reveal his intentions in regard to persecution. If he 
had at once declared against the edict he would have 
brought Licinius to the East, and a surprise would have 
been impossible ; and with Licinius would probably have 
come Constantine as his ally. He therefore issued a letter 
which, if not fully accepting the edict, was capable of 
being so understood. His object, in short, was to steal a 
march on Licinius, to conciliate his subjects, Christian as 
well as heathen, and to fight not two emperors but one. 
And he succeeded in attaining his end. There was dis 
cord, says Lactantius, almost war, between Licinius 
and Maximin. But Constantine took no part in the 
quarrel ; and apparently Licinius did not feel strong 
enough to take the field against his opponent. The two 
concluded a treaty which left Maximin master of the whole 
of Asia Minor. 

1 Lact. 35. 3. For the fact that Galerius died at Sardica see Bury s 
Gibbon, vol. i, p. 411, n. 45. 2 c. 36. 


The next event of first-rate importance in the narrative 
of Eusebius is the sending of memorials from various 
cities to Maximin praying that the Christians should be 
expelled from their borders. 1 Lactantius connects them 
with the return of the Emperor from the Bosporus. 
Eusebius leaves the impression that the first of the memo 
rials came from the city of Antioch ; and both writers 
regard them as the starting-point of the later persecution. 
We might therefore be tempted to date the Antiochene 
memorial inNovember 311. 

But this inference would be too hasty. In the first 
place it is probable that Maximin was near Antioch when 
the deputation waited on him from that city. Eusebius 
asserts that he had some hand in arranging that it should 
be sent, 2 and Lactantius confirms his statement. 3 If we 
can rely on Eusebius, the preliminaries must have occupied 
a considerable time. 4 But it is unlikely that Maximin should 
have left Bithynia immediately after it had come under 
his rule ; and if he did he would scarcely have travelled 
so quickly as to be at Antioch within five months of his 
departure from it. 5 And again, if Eusebius declares in one 
place that as a result of the memorials the flame of perse 
cution was again kindled, 6 in another he intimates that 

1 H. E. ix. 2-4. 2 Ibid. 

3 36. 3 subornatis legationibus ciuitatum . 4 H. E. ix. 3 ; 4. 

6 The whole distance from Antioch to Chalcedon and back was 
1,430 miles. On his outward journey Maximin was accompanied by 
an army, and he must have brought a portion of it back with him. 
But a march of 1,430 miles, under ordinary conditions, would have 
taken some fourteen weeks, or over three months, without allowing 
for delays. In this case there appears to have been at least one 
stoppage on the outgoing march, at Nicomedia (Lact. 36. 1.), and 
probably another at Chalcedon. The return journey was of the 
nature of an imperial progress through newly-won dominions, and 
would therefore almost certainly be very slow. 

6 H. E. ix. 4. 2. 


it began with the prohibition of assemblies in the 
cemeteries. 1 This was obviously not due to the granting 
of petitions which demanded the expulsion of the Chris 
tians. It must therefore be placed at an earlier time. And 
finally we have evidence that Antioch was not the first 
city to present a memorial. Maximin himself gives a 
different account of the matter in a letter to Sabinus, 
the Prefect already mentioned, the text of which is pre 
served by Eusebius. * "When I went last year , he writes, 2 
under auspicious circumstances to Nicomedia, and was 
tarrying there, the citizens of that city came to me with 
images of the gods, earnestly praying that such a nation 
[the Christians] should by no means be permitted to 
dwell in their country. The petition from Nicomedia 
was for a while refused ; but it is instructive to note it. 
The very fact that it was rejected marks it as earlier than 
the series of memorials of the same purport which began 
with that which emanated from Antioch. For they were 
all granted. 

Let us consider the passage which I have quoted a little 
more in detail. In connecting the renewal of the 
persecution with memorials from the cities Maximin 
agrees with both Lactantius and Eusebius. I shall 
presently have occasion to suggest that his seeming 
contradiction of the latter writer in the matter of the 
priority of the Antiochene memorial is more apparent 
than real. Meanwhile we have sufficient reason to believe 
that the Nicomedian petition was presented before the 
persecution was resumed ; that is, in or before November 

Its occasion was a somewhat prolonged visit of the 
Emperor to that city. Now Maximin must have gone to 
Nicomedia after his treaty with Licinius. And it is in 

1 H. E. ix. 2. 2 H. E. ix. 9. 17 TV jrapeX&wi 


harmony with the probabilities of the case that he should 
have remained there some time resting his troops after 
their long march. But there were other matters of much 
importance to detain him. Nicomedia was the seat of 
the imperial government under Galerius, and under his 
predecessor Diocletian. It was the principal city of 
Asia Minor and the most natural place in which to make 
arrangements for the government of the extensive 
territories which had now come into Maximin s hands. It 
is hardly possible to find room for a second visit there 
between the treaty with Licinius and the end of the year 
311 j 1 and certainly no other visit which he paid to it 
could be so fitly described as made under auspicious 
circumstances . We may assume, therefore, that the 
reference is to a sojourn there immediately after Licinius s 
cession of his Asiatic dominions. And the letter states 
that it began last year . 

Now the date of the letter to Sabinus can be fixed within 
narrow limits. In the first place it followed the receipt 
of the Edict of Milan by Maximin. 2 But, after the victory 
of the Milvian Bridge (October 27, 312), 3 Constantino and 
Licinius remained about two months in Rome. 4 They 
cannot therefore have reached Milan much before 
December 27. The composition of the edict, and the 
marriage of Licinius to Constantino s sister, Constantia, 

1 There was a visit later on apparently late in 312 during which 
Lucian was martyred (H.E. viii. 13. 2 ; ix. 6. 3). But Eusebius seems 
to imply that the persecution was then at its height, and that the 
petitions had been already granted. This is confirmed by the Apology 
of Lucian preserved by Rufinus (H. E. ix. 6 ; see also Routh, Eel. Sac. 
iv. 5) in which reference is made to the forged Acts of Pilate. 

I H. E. ix. 9. 12 f. That the edict was drawn up at Milan appears 
from the text of the letter of Licinius, H. E. x. 5. 4 ; Lact. 48. 2. 

3 Lact. 44. 4. 

4 Paneg. Vet. x. 33. Quicquid mali sexennio toto dominatio 
feralis inflixerat bimestris fere cura sanauit. Cp. Lact. 45. 1. 


which took place on the same occasion, must therefore be 
placed in the last days of 312 or early in 313. 1 News of 
the two events cannot have reached Maximin. who at this 
time was in Syria, 2 presumably at or near Antioch, till 
well on in January 313, probably about the 20th. 3 That 
is therefore the earliest possible date for the letter to 

Again, Lactantius informs us that when Maximin heard 
of the marriage of Licinius he marched from Syria to the 
Bosporus, and crossed over into Europe. He was in 
Europe three weeks before his defeat at Campus Serenus, 
April 30, 313. 4 Hence he must have reached the straits 
by April 9 at the latest. Let us suppose that he had got 
as far as Nicomedia by April 6. How much time was 
spent on the road from Antioch to that place ? Maximin 
no doubt advanced with all possible speed. 5 But the way 

1 It is curious that a law of Constantine is dated at Rome January 18, 
313 (Cod. lust. xi. 58. 1). If this date is correct the earliest possible 
date for the letter is about February 10. 2 Lact. 45. 2. 

3 The Antonine Itinerary (Parthey and Finder, p. 57 f.) gives the 
distance from Milan to Antioch as 2,167 miles. At the ordinary rate 
of the imperial post 120 miles a day (see above, p. 213) this distance 
could be traversed in eighteen days. 

4 Lact. 45. 5 f. ; 46. 8 f. He was eleven days at Byzantium, several 
days (apparently at least three) at Perinthus-Heraclea ; and it would 
seem that the armies were encamped opposite one another for a day 
or two before battle was joined. To all this must be added the time 
required for the march from Byzantium to the mansio after Heraclea 
{Tzurulum) a distance of over 80 Roman miles which would occupy 
five days. 

5 Lact. 45. 2 Mansionibus geminatis in Bithyniam concurrit . I 
take this obscure phrase to mean that Maximin, on account of the 
difficulties of the march, could not go as quickly as he would, and 
therefore stopped for rest after comparatively short stages. It is not 
of course to be inferred that the stages were only half the usual length. 
I do not know why Mason says (p. 333) that he loitered on the march , 
or (p. 335) that when he reached Bithynia he was obliged to wait for 
some time to recruit . 


was long, and it led over the Taurus mountains, the 
passage of which could not, under any circumstances, have 
been quickly made. 1 And Maximin encountered fierce 
winter weather. His army marched through mud, in snow 
and rain and cold. 2 It is therefore unlikely that, in spite 
of his exertions, the average pace of the advance was 
greater than that of an ordinary march on a level road. 
We may fairly conclude that it was not above 100 
miles a week, possibly much less. If Maximin reached 
Nicomedia seven weeks after his departure from 
Antioch, he must be regarded as having performed a 
considerable feat, considering the adverse conditions. 
Now counting back seven weeks from April 6 we reach 
February 16 as the latest date for the beginning of the 
expedition. It is also the later limit of date for the letter 
to Sabinus. For the purpose of that letter must have been 
either to conciliate his Christian subjects by way of 
preparation for his war against Licinius, or to conceal his 
hostile intent from his fellow emperors, if it was not 
designed to achieve both these ends. To be effective in 
either direction it was plainly desirable that it should be 
issued as soon as possible, and, at any rate, before the 
troops actually began to move. Thus we may with some 
confidence place it between January 20 and February 16, 

Yet this letter refers to a visit to Nicomedia not later 
than November 311 as having taken place last year . 
This would obviously have been impossible if Maximin, in 

1 The road from Tarsus ascends in the course of 25 or 30 miles to a 
height of nearly 4,000 feet, through a very narrow and difficult pass. 
See Ainsworth in the Journal of the London Geog. Society, x. 499 ; cp. 
W. M. Ramsay, Hist. Geog., p. 58. The road was mountainous the 
whole way from Tarsus to Tyana, a distance of over 70 miles. See 
Ramsay s map opposite p. 330. 

2 Lact. 1. c. 


Roman fashion, had counted January as the first month 
of the year. But, this supposition being excluded, it 
is probable that in his reckoning the year began in 
September. 1 For this hypothesis we shall find confirma 
tion as we proceed. If it is correct, Maximin writing 
early in 313 would naturally describe an event in, or 
shortly before, November 311 as belonging to the previous 
year. But he could not have so spoken of the visit to 
Nicomedia if it had been earlier than September. 
Maximin s arrival at Nicomedia after his compact with 
Licinius must therefore be set provisionally between 
September and November 311. 

Before carrying the argument to a further stage we 
may pause here to inquire how far this date fits in with 
what we can infer from other considerations. Galerius 
died at Sardica early in May 311. The news may have 
reached Antioch before the end of the same month. 2 
Now, as we have seen, a march from Antioch to Nicomedia 
would have been accomplished in a little under seven 
weeks. 3 Thus if the expedition set out on June 1 it would 
have reached Nicomedia about July 15. Here there was 
a delay the length of which cannot be determined. It 
was sufficient however to enable Maximin to purchase the 
allegiance of the Bithynians by removing an oppressive 
tax. 4 A further march of four days brought him to 
Chalcedon. 5 So we reach the last week of July. At 

1 Or perhaps October. See C. H. Turner in Journal of Theological 
Studies, i. 188. 

2 See above, p. 213. The death of Galerius seems to have been 
announced at Nicomedia May 15 (Lact. 35. 4). It might have been 
made known at Antioch a week later. 

3 Maximin does not seem to have been so anxious on this occasion 
as in the expedition of 313 to advance at high speed. But the time 
of year was more favourable. 

4 Lact. 36. 1. 5 60 Roman miles. 


Chalcedon he was perhaps obliged to wait for his 
adversary, 1 and when he came some days would be 
occupied in stormy negotiations conducted by the two 
emperors from opposite sides of the straits. For all this 
a week may be allowed. To this we have to add four days 
for the return to Nicomedia. Thus we may take the first 
or second week in August as the earliest date for the 
commencement of his sojourn in that city. But obviously 
it is more likely than not to have been considerably later. 
He may, for all we know, have been far south of Antioch 
when the report of Galerius s death came. He may not 
have been able to mobilize a sufficiently strong army in 
a few days. There may have been delays on the way, or 
at Chalcedon, which we have not allowed for. There 
would be nothing to surprise us if Maximin did not 
arrive at his new capital till September was pretty far 

I may now attempt the task of dating another im 
portant document, the reply to the memorials from the 
cities. For it is to be observed that it was a single 
document. Each several petition did not receive a 
separate answer, as we might perhaps have expected; 
but when all had come in, a rescript was issued which 
was sent to all the cities and other places concerned. 
This is implied by Eusebius more than once. Thus, 
after stating that the officials in other cities and the 
provincial governors followed the example of Theo- 
tecnus of Antioch in procuring petitions, he goes on to 

1 There is nothing improbable in this. If Licinius had been near 
Byzantium Maximin would not have stopped at Nicomedia and thus 
given him time to land troops at Chalcedon. The secrecy with which 
Maximin contrived to envelop his movements is very remarkable. 
It will be remembered that he was some weeks in Europe in 313 
before Licinius met him. It seems as though Licinius knew nothing 
about his advance until he had actually landed (Lact. 45. 5). 


say that the tyrant by a rescript expressed approval of 
the memorials that had been voted. 1 And again, when 
he comes to insert in his History a translation of the 
Emperor s reply, as he found it inscribed on a pillar at 
Tyre, though at the beginning of the chapter he speaks 
of it as one of a number of imperial ordinances, 2 yet 
lower down he calls it this document which was set up 
on pillars . 3 That Eusebius s hints may be relied on as 
accurate is proved by an inscription lately discovered at 
Arykanda in Lycia. 4 In it we have the text of the 
memorial of the citizens of that place in Greek, to which 
the reply of the Emperor, in the Latin language, was 
prefixed. Of the latter only a small portion remains ; 
but it is clearly identical with the underlying Latin of 
the conclusion of the Tyrian inscription quoted by 
Eusebius. 5 

Now this rescript must have been sent out between 
November 311 and the date of the letter to Sabinus 
(January-February 313). The text preserved by Eu- 
sebius has an indication of the time of year at which it 
was written ; for the Emperor appeals to the ripe corn in 
the broad plains, and the meads bright with flowers after 
the rain, as a mark of divine favour. 6 This points to the 
late summer. The rescript may therefore be assigned to 
August or September 312. This agrees with the state- 

1 H. E. ix. 4. 2 a>v 8f) Kal avrwv rot? ^rjfpia-fiaa-iv Si dvTtypa(pr)s 
acr^ej/ecrrara eTTivevvavTos TOV rvpavvov. 

2 Ibid. 7. 1 8i(iTa^(ov dvriypa(pai, Cp. 10. 12. 

3 2 evravQd p.oi avayicaiov flvai (paivfTai CIVTTJV 17 TCIVTTJV TrjV ev ar^Xaty 
dvaTfdf i(rav TOV Maifj.ivov ypacfrfjv evrd^ai. See also 16 ; and compare 
the title of the Tyrian inscription Ai/rt ypa^oi/ ep^veias TTJS Mai/xiVot 
npos TCI K.a.6 1 r]fj.S)v ^frj^ia p.aTa avTiypa(f)rjs, dno TIJS ev Tup6> (TTrj\r]s 

4 See Gebhardt, Ada martyrum selecta, Berlin, 1902, p. 184 f. 
6 H. E. ix. 7. 13 f. S 10. 


ment of Eusebius immediately following, that the boasts 
of Maximin were falsified, when in some places the 
messengers who carried the rescript to the governors 
had scarcely reached their journey s end, by the failure 
of the winter rains. 1 The setting up of the pillars must 
be put somewhat later in the year 312. They would 
hardly have been erected in the midst of the calamities 
which signalized the following winter, 2 nor after the 
letter to Sabinus. 

The last document of this period quoted by Eusebius 
is Maximin s Edict of Toleration, published a short time 
before his death. 3 To it we must now turn. The course 
of events which led up to it is traced by Lactantius, 4 
though the edict itself is not referred to by him. He 
tells us that after his defeat at Campus Serenus Maximin 
fled in disguise to Nicomedia, and thence to Cappadocia, 
where he resumed the purple, and collected an army. It 
was composed of fugitives from Campus Serenus and 
reinforcements from beyond the Taurus. His object, 
according to Lactantius, was to escape to the Diocese of 
the East, intending there, no doubt, to make a stand 
against Licinius. Licinius also proceeded eastwards, but 
with no great haste, for he was still at Nicomedia, when 
he published the Edict of Milan, on June 13, 313. Sub 
sequently, but how long after we have no hint, he went 
in pursuit of Maximin. On receiving word of his ap 
proach Maximin resumed his retreat, and betook himself 
to the Taurus mountains, where he fortified the passes. 
Licinius had a march of 450 miles before he reached 
Tyana, on the lower slopes of the Taurus. This must have 
consumed a month. Then began the advance of forty-five 
miles through extremely narrow and dangerous passes to 

1 H. E. ix. 7. 16 ; 8. 1. 2 H. E. ix. 8. 

3 Ibid. 10. 7. * c. 47 ff. 


the Gates of Cilicia. 1 Each mile of the road must have 
been contested, with every advantage on the side of the 
defending army. In the end, however, Maximin s forts 
were reduced, and he was driven out of the Taurus and 
retired on Tarsus. 2 Thus far we may follow Lactantius. 
But when he adds that Maximin, seeing that all hope 
was gone, took poison and died some days after in great 
agony, we may withhold our assent. Eusebius says nothing 
about poison ; but he does tell us that Maximin issued an 
edict in favour of the Christians as ample as that of Milan. 
This seems to prove that Maximin did not regard himself 
as finally beaten. He was, indeed, dispossessed of Pontus 
and Asia, but he apparently hoped to retain his old 
dominions in Syria and Egypt. 3 He may have perceived 
that in order to accomplish this a frank and permanent 
abandonment of the policy of persecution had become 
necessary. Thus I would explain the issue of his last 
edict. But if that was his purpose it was frustrated 
almost immediately afterwards by his death. That this 
took place very soon after Licinius s victory in the Taurus 

1 It is said that the rocky walls which form the Gates approached 
so close that, until Ibrahim Pasha blasted a road for his artillery, 
a loaded camel could just pass between them. Ramsay, op. cit., 
p. 58. 

2 Mason (p. 336) writes, He secured himself at Tarsus (to which he 
had retreated . . .) by blockhouses in the passes of the Taurus im 
plying that Maximin went to Tarsus before Licinius carried his forts. 
But I can find no support for this in Lactantius. Some such inference, 
indeed, might perhaps be drawn from H. E. ix. 10. 14 if Lactantius be 
ignored. But the two accounts are not irreconcilable. Maximin 
may have withdrawn at the last moment, when he found that the 
passes could no longer be held. 

3 The new army which Maximin got together in Cappadocia was 
composed of fugitives from Campus Serenus and reinforcements from 
the East (Lact. 47. 6). Obviously the legions in his original dominions 
were ready to fight for him. 

1353 Q 


is implied by the statement that he died in the second 
campaign of the war \ l 

From all this we cannot fix the date of Maximin s 
death with any approach to accuracy. But if we allow no 
more than six weeks for Licinius s advance from Nico- 
media and the capture of the Taurus passes, with a few 
days for Maximin s retreat to Tarsus, the issue of the 
edict, and his illness, and if we assume that Licinius left 
Nicomedia on June 14, we cannot put the final scene 
further back than the first week of August. 2 But if we 
suppose that Maxim in died in that month we encounter 
some difficulties. They may be summed up in the 
question, "Why did not Licinius follow up his successes ? 
Why did he leave Maximin unharmed at Tarsus to make 
plans for successful resistance in the following year ? 

The dilatory tactics of Licinius are indeed puzzling. 
But we may account for the fact that he was still in 
Bithynia, allowing the enemy to gather a fresh army, in 
June. He had a small army when he reached Campus 
Serenus in April, and he was probably obliged to wait for 
reinforcements before undertaking a further expedition. 
That, however, will not explain the fact that when he had 
advanced to the Gates of Cilicia he did not descend to 
Tarsus and try conclusions with a demoralized foe. Some 
other reason must be suggested ; and the most obvious 
one is that winter was already approaching. If he should 
chance to experience a reverse in Cilicia, and be obliged 
to recross the mountains late in the year harassed by an 
army more used to the severities of winter in high 

1 H. E. ix. 10. 13. 

2 I cannot follow those who put the edict in June e. g. Mason, 
p. 336 ; Bright, Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, p. 325 (with hesita 
tion) ; Gwatkin, Early Church History, ii. 359. The last-named writer 
implies that it was issued before the letter of Licinius (June 13). 


altitudes than his own, he might suffer irretrievable 
disaster. This consideration may lead us to suspect that 
the death of Maximin occurred not nearly so early as the 
beginning of August: more probably in September or 

Let us examine the edict itself. In it Maximin declares 
that last year he had decreed by letters sent to the 
governors of every province that if any one wished to 
follow the custom [of the Christians] or the observance 
of that religion he should be at liberty to do so, but 
that his commands had been misunderstood. 1 This un 
doubtedly refers to the letter to Sabinus of January or 
February 313. Since the writing of the letter, therefore, 
it appears that a new year, on Maximin s reckoning, had 
begun. Is the edict then to be dated in 314? It must 
belong to the early days of that year if Maximin s year 
began in January. This date does not seem to be 
absolutely impossible. But it is later than the arguments 
already advanced would lead us to expect. It seems, for 
example, to involve the supposition that Licinius 
postponed till mid-winter the attack on Maximin s 
fortifications in the passes of the Taurus, which is not 
likely. It is therefore desirable to date the edict a couple 
of months further back, if the facts permit us to do so. 
There is no obstacle in the way if we again assume that 
Maximin s year began in September. On that hypothesis 
the edict and the de^th of the Emperor may be assigned 
to September or October 313: but earlier than the 
September of that year they cannot be placed. 

A note of time is given by Eusebius himself which 

might seem likely to help us here. But unfortunately it 

is ambiguous. After transcribing the Greek version of the 

edict, he remarks, These are the words of the tyrant, 

1 H. E. ix. 10. 8f. 


penned not a whole year after the ordinances against the 
Christians set up by him on pillars. l Since, according 
to Eusebius s usage, the phrase not a whole year * is in this 
sentence practically equivalent to in the next year , 2 he 
seems to state that the rescript of August 312 and the edict 
of 313 belong to successive years. If his year began in 
January, that is in agreement with the conclusion that we 
have reached. But it is much more probable that his 
reckoning of years was the same as Maximin s and that he 
counted them as beginning in September. 3 In that case the 
rescript and the edict cannot have been issued in successive 
years, the former having been promulgated in the year be 
fore the letter to Sabinus and the latter in the year after it. 
Several solutions of this difficulty may be proposed. In 
the first place it may be urged, not unreasonably, that 
Eusebius may have fallen into error. It seems that the 
rescript was drafted only a few weeks before, and the edict 
perhaps only a few days after the beginning of a year. 
A very slight misplacement of either would account for his 
mistake. It is to be remembered that he was making 
a point of the shortness of the interval that separated them. 
But again, Eusebius may not have been referring to the 
date of the drafting of the rescript, but to that of the setting 
up of the pillars, which was of course later, and almost 
certainly at the beginning of the next year. 4 Or he may 
have had in mind the date of its arrival at some city in 
his own neighbourhood, as for instance Tyre ; 5 for we 
know that in some places it was not received till the 
beginning of the winter. 6 If either of these suppositions 

1 H. E. ix. 10. 12. See above, p. 198. 

3 See Turner, u. s. < See above, p. 224. 

5 So he dates the first edict of Diocletian April 303, in M. P. (Grk.) 
Pref., obviously intimating the time of its publication at Caesarea. 

6 H, E. ix. 7. 16. 


is correct, Eusebius s words confirm our conclusion as to 
the date of the edict. It must have been issued in the 
year which began in September 313. But I confess that 
another solution seems to me quite as probable as any of 
these. The assertion may be merely a false inference from 
the text of the edict itself. Eusebius may have supposed 
that the letters stated therein to have been sent to the 
governors last year were not the epistle to Sabinus but 
the rescript afterwards inscribed on pillars. If so, he is. 
only expressing in his own language what he understood 
the edict to say, and we cannot use his words as evidence 
at all. A sentence which is so difficult to interpret can 
have no weight on either side. 

Having determined with sufficient accuracy for our 
purpose the dates of the leading events recorded by 
Eusebius, we may now return to an earlier period, and 
endeavour to combine into a consistent narrative the 
various notices of the outbreak of Maximin s second 
persecution of the Christians. 

We have seen that after his treaty with Licinius, 
Maximin entered Nicomedia about September 311. There 
he tells us he made some stay. Before he left it may have 
been in November some of the citizens, as he informs us, 1 
urged him to prohibit the Christians from living in their 
territory. There can be no doubt that this statement is 
true. It is borne out by the text of his reply to the 
petitions from other cities, which proves that this was the 
request made by them all, 2 and by several passages in 
Eusebius. 3 And the very fact that Maximin does not 
pretend that the request was made by the citizens as a body 
increases its credibility. 

It is easy to understand that the petition presented at 

1 //. E. ix. 9. 17. 2 Arykanda inscription ; H. E. ix. 7. 12. 

* H. E. ix. 2 ; 3 ; 4. 1. 


Nicomedia placed Maximin in a difficult position. It was 
no doubt much to his liking. But his plans can hardly 
then have been matured, and it was perhaps too soon to 
show his hand and enter upon a serious war against the 
Church. Besides, it was the petition of a party, perhaps 
of a minority. So it was politely refused. Nevertheless 
it was politic to retain the loyalty of the Nicomedians, 
with whom he was just then in high favour. And so we 
may with some probability date at this time the 
prohibition of gatherings in the cemeteries of which 
Eusebius speaks. 1 This was not a very severe measure, as 
compared with others of which the Christians had had 
experience in the past. It might be justified on religious 
or political grounds. The Christians at such assemblies 
might worship the martyrs,- or they might hatch plots 
against the State. It would satisfy the less extreme of the 
persecuting party and it would not displease those who 
were tired of bloodshed. But by Eusebius it would 
certainly be counted an end of the peace. 

Not long after the presentation of the petition we may 
suppose the Emperor began his long journey back to Syria. 
And possibly during that journey he devised the carefully 
thought out scheme on which he soon after proceeded to 
act. It included, on the one hand, a sharp persecution, and 
on the other, definite measures for the restoration of 
paganism. Some years before Maximin had ordered 
the rebuilding of the temples ; 3 he now proposed to 
supplement this ordinance by the establishment of a 
heathen hierarchy in imitation of the Christian ministry, 
and by the direction that the forged Acts of Pilate should 
be used as a school manual. 4 The hierarchy was to be 
employed not only as a means of revivifying paganism, 

1 H. E. ix. 2. 2 See H. E. viii. 6. 7. 

3 M. P. (Grk.) 9. 2 ; Cureton, p. 31. 4 //. E. ix. 4 ; 5. 


but as an instrument of persecution. 1 But none of these 
things were to be set on foot by the unsupported fiat of the 
Emperor. If he wished to persecute, as no doubt he did, 
it is not at all improbable that he also wished, as 
Lactantius affirms, to appear to be coerced into 
persecuting. 2 And the petition from Nicomedia may have 
given him a hint how this was to be accomplished. 
Through Theotecnus he got an oracle from Jupiter Philius, 
and as an almost necessary consequence, a petition from 
the pagan citizens of Antioch, praying him to fulfil the 
behests of the god. 3 But there was no indecent haste in 
acceding to their request. Maximin merely indicated his 
gratification. That was sufficient to produce similar 
memorials from many other cities, and at length from 
country districts. When a large number had reached 
him he published the rescript, which banished the 
Christians, hinted that the gods should be more zealously 
worshipped, and rewarded the memorialists by inciting 
them to ask a further boon which he would certainly grant. 4 
The reply was dispatched to all the cities which had sent 
in memorials, not even Nicomedia being forgotten 5 This 
rescript, as we have seen, was issued about August 312. 
If we suppose that the petition from Antioch was presented 
about April or May we leave ample time for a leisurely 
progress of Maximin through Asia Minor during the 
winter months, and also for the engineering of petitions 
far and wide. 

It is evident that with the publication of this rescript 
the final persecution began in earnest. 6 It probably came 
to an end some five months later, when Maximin issued 

1 H. E. ix. 4. 3 ; Lact. op. cit. 36. 4. 

2 De Mort. Pers. 36. 3. 3 H. E. ix. 2 ; 3. 

4 Ibid. 7. 4, 7, 12, 13 f. fl Ibid. 7. 1, 15; 9. 19. 

6 Lact. 36. 3-7 ; H. E. ix. 5 ; 6. 


his letter to Sabinus, and entered upon his disastrous 
conflict with Licinius. 

It may be well before bringing this Essay to a close 
to say a few words in view of a possible objection. 
I have made considerable use of Maximiii s letter to 
Sabinus as evidence for historical facts. But this letter 
has been stigmatized as unworthy of credit. Dr. Mason 
sums up his opinion of it in these words : 

In this curious letter Maximin contradicts himself 
often enough to make his Christian subjects dizzy. First 
he justifies bloody persecution, then plumes himself upon 
having stopped it, next apologizes for having set it again 
on foot, then denies that it was going on, and lastly orders 
it to cease. We cannot wonder at what Eusebius relates, 
that the people whose wrongs the letter applauded and for 
bade, neither built church nor held meeting in public on the 
strength of it ; for they did not know where to have it. 1 

I cannot think that this criticism is altogether fair. 
For what are the statements of the letter on which it is 
founded ? Maximin certainly justifies the edicts of Dio 
cletian and Maximian, just as Galeriushad done before him; 
and, like G-alerius, he does so in the very act of proclaiming 
a cessation of violence against the Christians. But he 
says nothing about any later edicts, and his words, taken 
strictly, do not defend the punishment of the Christians by 
death. He then asserts (why should he be said to plume 
himself ?) that on his accession he stopped the persecu 
tion. There is good ground to believe that this is true, 2 
whatever may be thought of the reasons which he alleges 
to have moved him thereto. They are at any rate not 
unlike those which he gave at the time, and which were 
taken from the edict of Galerius. 3 Maximin next recounts 
the circumstances under which the persecution had lately 

1 Mason, p. 334. Quoted in part by Gwatkin (ii. 356), with approval. 

2 See above, p. 187. 3 H. E. ix. 1. 5. 


been renewed. That may in a sense be called an apology 
for his recent action. But it is not inconsistent with his 
previous assertions ; and when he connects the fresh out 
break of violence with petitions from the cities he is in 
agreement with Eusebius and Lactantius. He could 
scarcely be expected to add, with them, that he had him 
self taken measures to procure the petitions. On what 
words of the letter Dr. Mason founds the statement that 
Maximin denies that persecution was going on, I do not 
know. He certainly orders it to cease . 

When Dr. Mason goes on to mention the distrust with 
which the letter was received, the incautious reader might 
suppose that this was due to its misstatements and con 
tradictions. But Eusebius gives a very different reason 
for the fact that they neither built church nor held meet 
ing in public . It was because the letter contained no 
express permission to do these things. 1 They had had 
bitter experience in the past of the unwisdom of going 
beyond the letter of Maximin s concessions. 2 They were 
determined to be more cautious this time. There is no 
thing to suggest that they were in any way influenced by 
the inaccuracy of the Emperor s history. 

In one matter, nevertheless, Maximin was certainly 
guilty of suppressio veri. If we had no other document 
in our hands than his letter we might have supposed that 
there was no persecution in his dominions from the middle 
of 305 to the end of 311. This is, of course, contrary to fact. 
There was peace apparently from May 305 to April 306, 
and from May to November 311 ; and there seem to have 
been considerable intervals of rest in the intervening 
period. 3 But from November 309 to May 311 there was 
fierce and continuous persecution. Maximin writes as 
though it had not been. And it is probably true that in 
1 Ibid. 9. 23 f. 2 Ibid. 1.7. 3 See above, pp. 199 ff. 


other parts of his letter no Turk ever lied more shame 
lessly , though Dr. Mason is not altogether happy in his 
selection of the particular statement to which this remark 
should be applied. The Emperor was naturally anxious 
to put the best face possible on his actions. But however 
discreetly Maximin may have avoided disagreeable sub 
jects, it is really incredible that in a deliverance obviously 
designed to conciliate his Christian subjects he should 
make direct and positive statements which every one of 
them must have known to be absolutely untrue. The 
statements of the letter on which I have relied are either 
such as if they were not true must at the time have been 
notoriously false, or relate to matters about which there 
is no conceivable reason why Maximin should have lied. 
Of the former class is his testimony that the persecution 
was stayed on his appointment as Caesar, and that its 
recent renewal was the sequel of memorials from his sub 
jects. Of the latter is the date which he gives for his 
visit to Nicomedia, and the implication that it was the 
first city from which a memorial against the Christians 
had come to him. 


BY L. C. PURSER, Litt.D. 

IT is not very easy to fix definitely the normal day s 
march of a Eoman army. A iustum iter was considered 
to be what was accomplished in about five hours, and 
varied according to circumstances from 15 to 20 Eoman 
miles. Caesar marched from Corfinium to Brundisium, 
a distance stated to be 465 kilometers ( = 289 English, 315 
Eoman miles), in 17 days. If he marched every day, the 
rate would be 17 English miles a day : if he rested during 
two days, the rate would be almost 19. If this statement 
of the distance is correct, the rate assigned in Tyrrell s and 
my Cicero (vol. iv. p. xxix), viz. 15 Eoman miles a day, is quite 
too low : for the march was a rapid one (cp. Cic. Att. viii. 
14. 1 f.). But I am not quite sure that the distance is so 
great as 289 English miles. Eecruits when practising 
marching were expected three times a month in five 
summer hours to do 20 Eoman miles (75 Eoman = 69 
English miles) if they went at regulation rate (militaris 
gradus), 24 if at quick march (plenus gradus), see 
Vegetius i. 9 : but in a continuous series of days march 
ing I think that this rate could only be maintained under 
special circumstances ; especially if we remember that the 
Eoman soldier had to carry 60 Eoman pounds weight 
of pack (60 Eoman = 45 English lb.). Asparagium is 
about 15 English miles from Dyrrhachium, and Caesar did 
that distance in a iustum iter (Bell. Civ. iii. 76). In Bell. 
Gall. v. 47. 1 we find Caesar marching 20 Eoman miles in 
a day beginning at nine o clock. A sudden excursion 
from Gergovia (Bell. Gall. vii. 40, 41) of 25 Eoman miles 


forward and 25 backward appears to have been done within 
30 hours, but that was a special effort. In Bell. Gall. vii. 
10, 11, the distance (72 Eoman miles) from Agedincum 
(Sens) to Cenabum (Orleans) seems to have been traversed 
in four days =18 miles a day. Mr Eice Holmes (Caesar s 
Conquest of Gaul, p. 627) tells us that experienced soldiers 
(e. g. the Due d Aumale) say that an army could march 28 
kilometers (nearly 19 Eoman miles) a day for ten days 
successively, but that, they say, is very hard work. He 
quotes Lord Wolseley (Soldiers Pocket Book (ed. 3), p. 226) 
as stating that the length of ordinary marches for a force 
not stronger than one division moving by one road should 
be from 12 to 15 English miles ( = 13 to 16 Eoman miles) 
a day for 5 out of 6 days, or at most for 6 out of 7 : but 
French military men say that ancient armies could march 
faster, as they had not to drag about so many impedi 
menta and had not so many necessities as modern 



THE question whether the tract De Mortibus Perse- 
cutorum is from the pen of Lactantius, as its discoverer,, 
Baluze, supposed, and as has been assumed in the foregoing 
Essay, has often been debated. For the historical inquirer 
it is of minor importance, and I do not intend to discuss 
it fully here. The arguments have been set forth in recent 
years by Brandt, Bury, 1 and Pichon. 2 Something, 
however, may be said about what is generally regarded 
as the strongest part of the evidence against the Lactantian 

Jerome tells us 3 that Lactantius, having taught 
rhetoric for some time at Nicomedia, was in his old age 
the tutor of the Caesar Crispus in Gaul. And it is 
probably to him that we owe the statement, which appears 
in the Chronica of Eusebius under the year 317 4 the 
year of Crispus s appointment as Caesar that he in 
structed him in Latin literature. Now Lactantius com 
posed his Institutiones in Gaul before 310 and probably 
before 308. Therefore he must have left Nicomedia not 
later, at any rate, than 310. It is inferred that he cannot 
have been in Nicomedia between 311 and 313. But the 
author of the De Mortibus describes the events of those 
years at Nicomedia as an eyewitness. Hence he cannot have 

1 In his edition of Gibbon, vol. ii, p. 531, where references to the 
discussions of Brandt and others are given. 

2 R. Pichon, Lactance, etude sur le mouvement philosophique et religieux 
sous le regne de Constantin, Paris, 1901, p. 337. 

3 De Vir. HI 80. 4 Schoene, ii. 191. 


been Lactantius. I have attempted to show elsewhere l 
that the fifth book of the Institutions, or rather a tract 
De lustitia, which is embedded in it, was composed in Gaul 
as early as 306. It may be suggested that Lactantius left 
Nicomedia early in that year with Constantine, when the 
latter fled from G-alerius. 2 By that time Maximin had 
established himself in Bithynia, persecution had again 
broken out in his dominions, and there was every prospect 
that it would be of a more violent type than anything 
that Diocletian had sanctioned before the eve of the 
abdication. It was just the time when a Christian 
living at Nicodemia, if the opportunity offered, would 
seek refuge in the only part of the Empire where he 
would be secure from molestation. 

How then can the Lactantian authorship of the De 
Mortibus be defended ? There is much force in the con 
tention that Lactantius did not become the tutor of 
Crispus at Trier till 317, and that there is nothing to 
hinder us from supposing that he returned for a time to 
Nicomedia, and was there from 311 until the De Mortibus 
was written (313 or 314). But I think we may go further. 
The evidence that the writer of the De Mortibus was at 
Nicomedia from 311 to 313 is not very strong. It is true 
that he knew the exact day on which the news of 
Galerius s death became known there. 3 He knew also 
the date of the letter of Licinius, published at Nicomedia, 
and the fact that he supported it with a speech. 4 But 
these are things of which he might have received infor 
mation from his Nicomediaii friends. 

On the other hand, he makes a mistake about a matter 
of capital importance which gives us good reason to 
believe that he was not living at Nicomedia during the 
later persecution by Maximin. We have seen that the 
ostensible cause of the renewal of persecution was a series 

1 Hermathena, vol. xii, no. 29 (1903), pp. 452 ff. 

2 De Mort. Pers. 24. 3 Ibid. 35. 4. * Ibid. 48. 1, 13. 


of memorials to the Emperor; and that, according to 
Eusebius and the authorities quoted by him, as well as 
the Arykanda inscription, the purport of all the memorials 
was the same, a prayer that the Christians should be 
banished. The evidence is specially strong that it was so 
in the case of the memorial from Nicomedia. 1 The author 
of the De Mortibus is alone in telling us that the memorials 
merely demanded that Christians should not be allowed 
to build churches within the cities. If he had been in 
Nicomedia when the memorial from that city was pre 
sented he could hardly have fallen into this error. 

Further, there is no hint in the De Mortibus that in 
the later persecution Christians were put to death, as 
such, by public process of law. Indeed the contrary is 
implied. 2 But Eusebius gives the names of several promi 
nent martyrs of this period among them that of Lucian 
who suffered at Nicomedia. 3 The author of the De 
Mortibus could hardly have written as he did if he had 
been resident in Nicomedia at the time. 

Now if Lactantius left Nicomedia in the company of 
Constantine and remained in Europe under his protection 
till 317 or later, he would have been an eyewitness 
of the persecution at Nicomedia for about three 
years ; but of its later history, though he might 
have had accurate information, he could have had little 
first-hand knowledge. How does that agree with the 
supposition that he was the author of the De Mortibus 
Persecutorum ? No one who reads the chapters of that 
work which narrate the beginning of the persecution and 
the events which followed it up to the abdication in May 
305 4 can fail to carry away the impression that the man 

1 Above, p. 217. 2 36. 6f. ; 37. 1. 

8 H. E. ix. 6. 3. To him might be added Anthimus, bishop of 
Nicomedia, if he was beheaded at that time (H. E. viii. 13. 1). 
But Eusebius seems to be right in placing his martyrdom much earlier. 
See below, pp. 268 ff. 

4 cc. 10-20. 


who wrote them was on the spot during that period. 
They are full of accurate dates and vivid detail. And if 
the author relates a conversation between Diocletian and 
Galerius, of which a private citizen would not be likely 
to have known, 1 it is to be remembered that his imagina 
tion may have been assisted by reports from Constantine, 
if he was already on friendly terms with him. The 
chapters which follow, giving detailed information con 
cerning the administration of Galerius, 2 are such as may 
well have been written by one .who was living at the 
seat of government. They contain particulars which 
could not easily have been ascertained in Gaul. But for 
our purpose it is as necessary to note what the writer omits 
as what he tells in this part of his work. He seems to 
have been ignorant of some not unimportant facts. Thus 
he has not much to say about Diocletian s visit to Rome. 3 
He passes over in silence Maximian s important edict of 
April 304. 4 He implies that Maximian abdicated about 
the same time as Diocletian, 5 but he gives no particulars. 
That is to say, he evinces little knowledge of contemporary 
events in the West. 

After the flight of Constantine there are sections of the 
book which suggest, if not first-hand knowledge, at least 
abundance of information. But they are not the sections 
which are concerned with Asia Minor. They may be 
divided into two groups. The first consists of those 
chapters which relate the course of events in the "West, 
from the proclamation of Maxentius as Emperor at Rome 
up to his defeat at the Milvian Bridge. 6 It includes 
a very full account of the plots of Maximian, much of 
which is not recorded elsewhere. In the latter part of 
the narrative the earlier stages of Constantine s Italian 
campaign are omitted, perhaps with a view to brevity. 
But a reverse which he sustained, apparently not far from 

1 c. 18. 2 cc. 21-23. s 17. i f. 

4 Above, p. 202. B 20. 1. 6 cc. 26-30, 43, 44. 


Rome, is noticed. It is obvious that a great deal of the 
information given in these chapters would be accessible 
to a hanger-on of the court of Constantine. It may be 
suggested, however, that while the writer was in Gaul up 
to the death of Maximian (apparently early in 310), he 
was in or near Rome when Constantine entered it 
(October 27, 31 2). It is at least remarkable not only that, 
as I have just observed, no mention is made of the battles 
of Susa, Turin, and Verona, but that the highly important 
proceedings at Milan after the final defeat of Maxentius 
are touched upon very slightly. 1 

Another group of passages, also concerned with the "West, 
suggests a connexion of the writer rather with Licinius 
than with Constantine. Three chapters relate the story 
of the last illness and death of Galerius and give the 
text of his Edict of Toleration. 2 It will be remembered 
that Licinius, as the writer tells us, was with Galerius at 
Sardica when he died. Three chapters are also devoted 
to the defeat of Maximin at Campus Serenus. 3 Here 
remarkable knowledge of detail is displayed. Almost 
every day is accounted for from the time Maximin set 
foot in Europe ; and dates and distances are carefully 
recorded. The narrator knows about the message sent 
from Byzantium to Licinius, and a careful calculation 
makes it probable that Licinius was at Sardica when it 
arrived. 4 The detailed account of the movements of 

1 45. 1. 2 33-35. 3 45-47. 

4 While Maximin lay before Byzantium letters were sent to Licinius, 
informing him of the invasion of his territory. Supposing him ta 
have been at Sardica the letters would have reached him in three or 
four days (400 Roman miles). A march, at the ordinary rate, from 
Sardica to Druzipara (16 miles from Tzurulum, 304 Roman or 280 
English miles from Sardica) would have taken two weeks and five days. 
By a forced march Licinius might therefore have reached that place 
within three weeks from the time of the dispatch of the letters. (The 
rate would have been about the same as that of Caesar s march from 
Corfinium to Brundisium. See above, p. 235.) That is about the time. 


Maximin s army in Europe is thrown into striking relief 
by the comparative meagreness of the particulars supplied 
of his previous march across Asia Minor, and of the move 
ments of both emperors after the battle of Campus 
Serenus. One is tempted to conjecture that the writer 
may have resided for some time at Sardica in 311 and 
again in the early months of 313. He may have left 
Rome not long after the battle of the Milvian Bridge. 

It is obvious that all this fits in with what we know 
independently of Lactantius. He seems to have left 
Nicomedia in 306. He was in Gaul till about 308. 
After that we lose sight of him till 317, when he was at 

as we saw (p. 219), which intervened between Maximin s landing in 
Europe and his arrival at Tzurulum. 


IT is evident that the tenth book of the Ecclesiastical 
History was a supplement not included in the original 
design. Of this we are informed by the writer himself. 
1 Since it was in response to thy prayers , he writes, 1 
that we added (eTTi^ei/re?) at this time the tenth book 
(r6fj.ov) to those which were already completed of the 
Ecclesiastical History, let us inscribe it to thee, my most 
holy Paulinus, proclaiming thee as it were the seal of the 
whole matter. An edition of the History had therefore 
been in circulation which ended with the ninth book. 

Dr. Schwartz, 2 however, has recently put forth the 
theory that two editions of the entire work in ten books 
were published by the author, the earlier before and the 
latter after the downfall of the Emperor Licinius in 323. 
This theory is based on the phenomena of the authorities 
for the text the seven manuscripts which he indicates 
by the symbols A T E E M B D, the ancient Syriac version 
(2), and the Latin version of Eufinus (A). Schwartz 
observes that in the last three books the group A T E E 
has a number of words, phrases, and longer passages 
which are not found in M B D 2 A, and he claims that 
these belonged to the earlier text and were excised in the 
final edition, which according to him is represented by 
the second group. 

1 H. E. x. 1. 2. 

2 E. Schwartz and T. Mommsen, Eusebius Werke, Zweiter Band. 
Die Kirchengeschichte. Die lateinische tibersetzung des Rufimis, dritter 
Teil, Leipzig, 1909, pp. xlvii ff. 

B 2 


To make good this contention it is necessary to assign 
some probable motive for the supposed omissions, and to 
show that they were made by Eusebius himself. 

Now, according to Schwartz six or seven of the omis 
sions are obviously due to the desire to get rid of the 
mention of Licinius as the partner of Constantine in his 
efforts on behalf of the Church. If that is so the passages 
in question must have been struck out after the final 
defeat of Licinius. But since this motive would have 
been inoperative after the death of Constantine the 
edition in which the passages were omitted must have 
been published in his reign and therefore by the authority 
of Eusebius. 

Some points of the argument as thus briefly stated 
invite criticism. In the first place, one may venture to 
doubt whether all alterations made in the text during 
the reign of Constantine must necessarily have had the 
authority of Eusebius. In the second century we have 
the complaint of Dionysius that his letters had been 
tampered twith, 1 and the well-known adjuration ap 
pended to Irenaeus s lost work on the Ogdoad 2 indicates 
a fear that his writings might be similarly dealt with. 
It is worthy of note that Eusebius quoted this adjuration 
at the beginning of the second part of his Chronicle? But, 
again, it is not clear that hatred of Licinius, the last of the 
persecuting emperors, would not have led to alteration of 
the text after the death of Constantine. Such changes 
may no longer have been necessary to make the book ac 
ceptable to the court ; but many a Christian scribe would 
have been tempted to discredit Licinius without any 
such aim in view. And it must be observed that, apart 

1 H. E. iv. 23. 12. 2 Ibid. v. 20. 2. 

3 Migne, P. G. xix. 325. It does not appear at the corresponding 
place in Schoene (ii. 10). 


from the evidence adduced by Schwartz, there is little 
reason to believe that Eusebius made any attempt, by the 
omission or modification of his statements, to deprive 
Licinius of credit to which he was justly entitled. In. 
several parts of the tenth book his eulogies of him remain 
in all the authorities for the text ; l and if in the ninth 
book he has in a couple of places inserted ill-natured 
references to his later madness , 2 at least one of the 
passages to which they are added has been left otherwise 
unchanged, not a word of the praise accorded to Licinius 
being withdrawn. 

The exemplar from which the manuscripts A T E B, 
were derived was not a copy of the supposed earlier 
edition of the last three books of the History, since they 
give unanimous testimony to certain passages which must 
have been written after the fall of Licinius. It was 
therefore so Schwartz would have us think a transcript 
of the final edition interpolated with extracts from the 
edition that preceded it. But if interpolation in a 
manuscript is once admitted it cannot be assumed with 
out proof that the added sentences were derived from a 
single source. If some of the additions in A T E E, should 
turn out to be relics of an earlier edition of the History, 
it will not follow that the others came from it also. 

And one further remark must be made. In the mind 
of the present writer there is no doubt that the eighth 
and ninth books of the History passed through two or 
more editions under the hand of their author, and that 
the later editions differed more or less widely from their 
predecessors. It is quite possible that traces of these suc 
cessive editions may be found in the extant manuscripts 
and versions. The question in dispute is whether two 
editions of the tenth book were published by Eusebius, 
1 x. 2. 2; 4. 16, 60. 2 ix. 9. 1,12, 


the later of which differed in its text from the earlier. If 
that cannot be proved Schwartz s theory is untenable. 

Let us now examine as briefly as possible the examples 
of omission in the final edition which he produces. I 
take first those which are obviously the most important 
omissions which he alleges to be clearly due to damnatio 
memoriae Licinii. 

The first of them is at once granted. It is the omission 
of the name and titles of Licinius from the Toleration 
Edict of Galerius. 1 It will be necessary to return to it 

The next example is perhaps less convincing. It is 
found in the introduction to the account of the defeat of 
Maxentius by Constantine. 2 It runs thus, the bracketed 
words being omitted in M B D 2 A : 

So then Constantine, whom we have already mentioned 
as an emperor born of an emperor, pious son of a father 
most pious and in all things most prudent, [and Licinius 
who was next to him in rank, men honoured for good 
sense and piety,] stirred up by the all-ruling God and 
Saviour of the universe, and making war [ two men be 
loved by God ] against [two] a most impious tyrants/ &c. 

Assuming that the longer form of this passage belonged 
to an earlier edition, its abbreviation might well be due 
to hatred of Licinius. But two questions may be asked. 
On this assumption, why was not the work of eliminating 
reference to him more thoroughly done ? For in a later 
clause the victory over Maximin is ascribed to Licinius : 
and quite unnecessarily, since it lies altogether outside 
the scope of the chapter and there was no need to mention 
it at all. And the longer form represents the facts more 

1 H.E. viii. 17. 5. * ix 9 L 

3 M B D 2 have the J . In this recension the participles are of 
course in the singular number instead of the plural. 


correctly, for it is not true that Constantine made war 
against Maximin as the shorter text implies. Is it not 
possible that the longer form was evolved from the shorter, 
in the interest of historical accuracy, while Licinius was 
still in power ? But on the whole the balance of proba 
bility seems to be in favour of the priority of the text 
of ATE E. 

If further on in the same chapter l the authors of the 
Edict of Milan are described as both Constantine himself 
and with him the Emperor Licinius , and the shorter 
text drops the title Emperor , the exhibition of malignity 
is not very striking. A sufficient motive for the omission 
lies in the fact that Constantine is given no title in either 
text. Lower down, after the text of Maximin s letter to 
Sabinus has been quoted, mention is made of a letter 
written by ; the advocates of peace and piety Constantine 
and Licinius to their eastern colleague. 2 That M B D 2 
(the underlying Greek of A is uncertain) here omit the 
names Constantine and Licinius can scarcely be due to 
damnatio memoriae Licinii, for it would equally damn the 
memory of Constantine ; and it would leave to Licinius his 
share of credit for the letter, and the title of advocate of 
peace and piety . It is more natural to suppose that 
Constantine and Licinius is a gloss not altogether 
unneeded, since neither name has been mentioned in the 
narrative for a considerable time. And in like manner 
when in the next chapter 3 we read in A T E R that the 
victory over Maximin was given to Licinius, the ruler at 
that time , 4 we cannot find much trace of malice in the 
mere omission by M B D 2 (A paraphrases) of the name. 
The words the ruler at that time would very naturally 
be glossed by the insertion of Licinius , and it is not at 

1 ix. 9. 12. 2 ix. 9. 25. 3 ix. 10. 3. 

4 rep Tore Kparovvri. 


all necessary to assume that the glossator laboriously 
transcribed the name from another manuscript. 

"We have now considered five instances in which, 
according to Schwartz, Eusebius in his last edition 
omitted references to Licinius. It has perhaps been made 
sufficiently clear that at least three of them are doubtful. 
"We now pass to another alleged case of omission, which 
is more important than any of these, both because the 
passage concerned is of much greater length, and because 
it is the only one in the tenth book. 

The collection of imperial ordinances contained in 
chapters 5-7 of that book appear in A T E E M, but not in 
B D . Whether they were in the Greek from which A 
was translated is uncertain, since Eufinus omitted not only 
these chapters but the greater part of the book. "We note, 
in the first place, that here the grouping of the manu 
scripts is not the same as before. M has gone over to the 
side of A T E E. It is extremely difficult, on Schwartz s 
theory, to account for this eclecticism of M. Why, if it 
is really a manuscript of the supposed second edition 
of Books viii-x, did it draw upon the first edition only 
in this place and, as we shall see, in one other ? It is at 
least possible that it is derived from a recension in which 
Books viii, ix appeared without the passages peculiar to 
A T E E, or the greater number of them, while Book x 
was substantially in the form in which it is printed in 
most modern editions, including the imperial ordinances. 
M, therefore, so far as it goes, is a witness against the 
theory that the passages peculiar to A T E E hitherto 
examined were struck out at the same time as chapters 5-7 
of the tenth book. 

That these chapters were, in any case, dropped out with 
the object of casting odium on Licinius is hardly credible. 
They contain six ordinances. Only in the first of the 


series that which, is often described with doubtful 
accuracy as the Edict of Milan does the name of Licinius 
occur. The second, though the first person plural l is used 
throughout, is in the heading, and no doubt rightly, 
ascribed to Constantine. 2 His name stands in the next 
three, and the last, which is anonymous, certainly ema 
nated from him. It is obvious that the supposed purpose 
of the omission of the edicts would have been achieved 
if the first of the six, or even the clause of it in which 
the name of Licinius appears, had been deleted. Is it 
conceivable that Eusebius should have struck out six 
ordinances, every one of which, from his point of view, 
redounded to the credit of Constantine, merely to blacken 
the character of Licinius ? 

But it is evident that in the fourth century a recension 
of the History was current in some quarters, from which 
these chapters were absent. "We must then observe that 
there is much difficulty in believing that it was published 
by the authority of Eusebius. For we have in an earlier 
passage 3 a reference to them which could not escape the 
notice even of a cursory reader. After touching upon the 
building of churches which followed the conclusion of the 
persecution, Eusebius writes : 

Moreover the supreme Emperors, by successive ordi 
nances on behalf of the Christians, confirmed to us further 
and more effectively (e/y paKpov tri KOL ntlov) the bless 
ings which had come from the Divine bounty, and letters, 
honours and gifts of money were sent by the Emperor to 
the several bishops. It will not be amiss if at a fitting 
point of the discourse I insert in this book, as on a sacred 
pillar, the text ((p<oi>ds) of them, translated from the Latin 
into the Greek language, that they may be transmitted to 
all who come after us as a memorial. 

1 x. 5. 16 f. /3ouXo/A0a, 7rpor]prjfj,eOa, &C. 

2 nenoirjTai A T E M. R, followed by many modern editors, reads 

TTfrroirjVTai. 3 x. 2. 2. 


These words are vouched for by all our authorities. 1 
There can be no doubt that they stood in the final edition 
of the History. On Schwartz s theory we must suppose 
that Eusebius, while striking out the ordinances, allowed 
this passage to remain unchanged. This is not probable. 
Schwartz himself thinks that the deletion of the ordi 
nances involved the deletion of another passage in which 
the allusion to them is certainly less definite, and which 
from its position in the work was more likely to be over 
looked. To it we must now turn. 

It is the closing sentence of Book ix according to the 
majority of the printed editions and the manuscripts 
A T E E M. It runs thus : 

1 So then, the impious ones having been purged out, 
the government, which was theirs by right, was preserved 
firm and undisputed for Constantine and Licinius ; who 
having first of all purged out of the world hostility to God, 
recognizing the benefits conferred upon them by God, 
displayed their love of virtue and of God and their piety 
and gratitude to the Deity by their ordinance on behalf 
of the Christians. 

This is a passage which might well have been altered 
after the fall of Licinius. And accordingly in B D J A 
(here again, we note deserted by M) we have in its place 
the thanksgiving with which in all the printed editions, 
as in A T E E M, the tenth book opens. Apparently it 
stood in both places in the exemplar from wnich B D A 
were derived. Why was this new ending substituted for 
the one that we have quoted? Not merely, according 
to Schwartz, because of the prominence which the latter 

1 2, naturally enough, and M, for some reason which is less obvious, 
omit the remark that the ordinances were translated from Latin into 
Greek. A, dealing with the whole passage very freely, also omits this 
clause, and in addition the statement that copies were to be inserted 
later on. Otherwise there is no substantial difference among the 


gives to Licinius, but because it refers to x. 5-7 and was 
therefore necessarily omitted along with those chapters. 
Schwartz holds, in fact, that the collection of ordinances 
originally had its place after this sentence at the end of 
Book ix thus serving as the close of the entire work. 
The tenth book was subsequently added for the purpose 
of including the panegyric at Tyre ; and the ordinances 
were transferred from their old place, so that they might 
still be the conclusion of the History. Thus the first 
edition of Book x consisted of the first seven chapters of 
the book. After the fall of Licinius the eighth and ninth 
chapters were added, the collection of ordinances was 
struck out, and with it ix. 11. 8 b. Thus the discarding of 
the old ending of Book ix is definitely connected with the 
issue of a second edition of Book x. 

But is it true that the received ending (as we may call 
it) of Book ix alludes to the six ordinances preserved in 
Book x ? It certainly reads like a preface to an imperial 
concession to the Christians, the text of which was placed, 
or was intended to be placed, at the close of the book, just 
as the Toleration Edict of Galerius stands at the close of 
Book viii. But the passage itself suggests that the con 
cession was contained in a single ordinance, not in a series 
of letters. It is called a vo^oBecria : in x. 2. 2 the series pre 
served in the tenth book is spoken of as vopoOeo-Lai, in the 
plural. Further, the vofjioQea-ia in question is said to have 
been issued by Constantine and Licinius acting in concert. 
That was true of the first of the ordinances of Book x 
the letter of Licinius from Nicomedia but it was not 
true of any of the others. And it is worthy of note that 
the word vofjLoQta-ia, is actually twice applied to the letter 
of Licinius in the document itself, according to the trans 
lation which Eusebius gives. 1 Apart from this circum- 

1 x. 5. 14. 


stance it may fairly be argued that the ordinance here 
mentioned was the law of which an account was given in 
an earlier chapter : 

After these things (sc. the defeat of Maxentius) both 
Constantine and with him the Emperor Licinius, . . . prais 
ing God the author of all good things to them, both with 
one counsel and mind draw up in the fullest way a most 
perfect law on behalf of the Christians, and send an 
account of the wonderful things done for them by God 
and of the victory against the tyrant, and the law itself, 
to Maximin, who was still ruling over the nations in the 
East and feigning friendship towards them. * 

The law spoken of here was of course the Edict of Milan ; 
and the inference seems inevitable that either it or the 
letter of Licinius founded upon it was the document the 
text of which was reserved for the end of the book. 

But we may go a step further. Any one who compares 
the received ending of Book ix with the earlier passage 
just quoted will, I believe, come to the conclusion that the 
man who allowed the latter to stand would not feel com 
pelled to suppress the former merely on account of the 
prominence which it gives to Licinius as a believer in 
God and a friend of the Church. This argument is not 
weakened but strengthened by the fact that Eusebius in 
his last revision added a clause to the earlier passage about 
the later madness of that Emperor. If that clause had 
not been inserted we might have supposed that Eusebius 
let the passage remain through sheer carelessness. Its pre 
sence proves the contrary. The historian in the obtruded 
note remarked, as he might fairly do, that ultimately 
the relation of Licinius to the Church became one of hos 
tility. To have withdrawn any of the statements which 
he had made when the final catastrophe was still future 
would have been a suppressio veri: and to that he did not 

1 ix. 9. 12. 


stoop. He left Licinius in possession of all the credit 
which, in spite of his subsequent conduct, he deserved, 
from Eusebius s point of view, for his early friendship to 
the Christians. Nevertheless I deem it probable that the 
closing sentence of Book ix was deleted and that now 
found in B D 2 A put in its place by Eusebius himself. 
The cause of this alteration will be considered presently. 
It is sufficient to say now that the assimilation of the end 
of Book ix to the beginning of Book x was in Eusebius s 
manner. 1 The deleted passage was in fact not wholly 
suppressed but removed, with some necessary changes, 
to the end of Book x, where it now appears in all the 
manuscripts and the two versions. It is not probable 
that Eusebius closed two successive books of the History, 
in the same edition, with sentences so closely parallel. 

It is not necessary to examine in detail the remain 
ing four passages found in A T E B, and wanting in the 
other authorities, because, supposing them to have been 
omitted in a later edition, they afford no indication that 
the date of that edition followed the death of Licinius, 
and they do not in any way connect themselves with the 
variations in the manuscripts of the tenth book. Two of 
them, according to Schwartz, were omitted because they 
described Galerius as the author of the persecution ; 2 and 
one of these omissions attained the further end of getting 
rid of an allusion to the death of Diocletian. 3 Two others 

1 See below, p. 289. 

2 viii. 16. 2 f. ; App. He points to the silence of Orat. Const. 25 
about Galerius. In one sense it was untrue that Galerius was the 
originator of the persecution, since Diocletian persecuted before the 
edict of 303. See H. E. viii. 4. 2 ; Lact. 10. This might account for 
the omissions in question. 

3 viii. App. Cf. V. C. i. 23. The principle enunciated in the 
Life of Constantino , that no account should be given of the deaths of 
persecuting Emperors, is not very strictly adhered to in the last edition 
of the History. See e.g. ix. 10. 14 f. Moreover, the evidence that 


are accounted for as an effort to save Constantine from 
the imputation of having accused the Christians of un 
reasoning obstinacy. 1 But these are motives which might 
have operated as powerfully before Constantine became 
sole Emperor as afterwards. 

I conclude then that from the variations among the 
authorities for the text we have no sufficient reason 
for believing that Eusebius issued two editions of his 
tenth book. I believe, indeed, that stronger evidence for 
Schwartz s theory might have been discovered in those 
parts of the text of the book itself which have the support 
of all the authorities. The first chapter might have led us 
to expect that nothing would follow it save chapter 2, 1 
and chapters 3, 4. And even when we read the intimation 
of chapter 2, 2, that a collection of ordinances was to be 
included, are we not prepared for the last two chapters 
on the war between Constantine and Licinius ? But to 
recognize all this is no more than to admit that the book 
is badly constructed, 2 an admission which must be made 
in the case of other books of the same work. It does not 
give us a sure foundation on which to build a theory of 
successive editions. 

And if it is difficult to believe that some of the passages 
of the Tyrian panegyric which laud the actions of 

viii. App. was intended by Eusebius to form part of the History is 
weak, as will be seen presently. 

1 viii. 16. 7 ; ix. 1. 3-6. The omission in M B D in viii. 16. 7 does 
not appreciably soften the strictures on the Christians ; and it is not 
likely that any one would have based a charge against Constantine on 
the letter of Sabinus in ix. 1. The letter may have been omitted be 
cause it has at least the appearance of contradicting the statement of 
the previous sections, that Maximin did not issue written commands 
to the provincials. Sabinus certainly wrote in his name. 

2 In spite of Schwartz s remark (p. liv) I do not see why x. 8. 1 a 
may not refer to cc. 5-7. 


Licinius 1 were given to the public at the same time as the 
chapters which describe his subsequent wrongdoing, 2 it 
must be remarked that the same difficulty attends us 
when we maintain that those passages were left unaltered 
in a second edition of the book in which the closing 
chapters were added. In. either case the only explanation 
that can be given is that Eusebius, in spite of all attempts 
to prove the contrary, was an honest historian who would 
not withdraw what he had written until he became con 
vinced that it was false. The tenth book, whatever view 
we take of the manner of its composition, is a witness to 
his unswerving desire to be just, under strong temptation. 
Biased he no doubt was his final chapters prove it 


Page 193 note 2 for Theodoric read Theodosia 

Paf/e 200 note 1 for burie read buried 

Page 254 line 16 for are we not prepared . . . 

Licinius ? read we are not prepared . . . 


Lawlor, Eusebiana August, 1912 

Face page 254 

written Eusebius was not aware of the rupture of Licinius 
with Constantine which happened in 314 ; 4 and it appears 

1 x. 4. 16, 60. 2 See e. g. x. 8. 3, 5 ff. 

8 See Lightfoot in Diet, of Christ. Biog. ii. 322 f. See also the excellent 
lecture on Eusebius, the Father of Church History by Westcott, of 
which Lightfoot made use. It has been published in the volume 
entitled The Two Empires, the Church and the World, 1909. The diffi 
culty about Paulinus (Diet, of Christ. Biog. iv. 232) does not invalidate 
Lightfoot s reasoning. 

4 No doubt Westcott wrote in ignorance of the fact that Constantine 
and Licinius were at peace again in 315. But his argument seems to 


are accounted for as an effort to save Constantine from 
the imputation of having accused the Christians of un 
reasoning obstinacy. 1 But these are motives which might 
have operated as powerfully before Constantine became 
sole Emperor as afterwards. 

I conclude then that from the variations among the 
authorities for the text we have no sufficient reason 
for believing that Eusebius issued two editions of his 
tenth book. I believe, indeed, that stronger evidence for 
Schwartz s theory might have been discovered in those 
parts of the text of the book itself which have the support 
of all the authorities. The first chapter might have led us 
to expect that nothing would follow it savp r.lm-nfr 9 K i 

viii. App. was intended by Eusebius to form part of the History is 
weak, as will be seen presently. 

1 viii. 16. 7 ; ix. 1. 3-6. The omission in M B D in viii. 16. 7 does 
not appreciably soften the strictures on the Christians ; and it is not 
likely that any one would have based a charge against Constantine on 
the letter of Sabinus in ix. 1. The letter may have been omitted be 
cause it has at least the appearance of contradicting the statement of 
the previous sections, that Maximin did not issue written commands 
to the provincials. Sabinus certainly wrote in his name. 

2 In spite of Schwartz s remark (p. liv) I do not see why x. 8. 1 a 
may not refer to cc. 5-7. 


Licinius 1 were given to the public at the same time as the 
chapters which describe his subsequent wrongdoing, 2 it 
must be remarked that the same difficulty attends us 
when we maintain that those passages were left unaltered 
in a second edition of the book in which the closing 
chapters were added. In either case the only explanation 
that can be given is that Eusebius, in spite of all attempts 
to prove the contrary, was an honest historian who would 
not withdraw what he had written until he became con 
vinced that it was false. The tenth book, whatever view 
we take of the manner of its composition, is a witness to 
his unswerving desire to be just, under strong temptation. 
Biased he no doubt was his final chapters prove it 
but never a conscious tamperer with truth. 

In the remainder of this Essay, then, I shall assume that 
Eusebius issued but one edition of the tenth book. And, 
as a necessary consequence, I shall regard it as having 
been published in its first and final form after the fall of 
Licinius in 324 or early in 325. 3 

It seems clear that the ninth book was composed ten 
years or more before this final supplement was added to 
the work. To quote the words of Westcott, which have 
been adopted in their entirety by Lightfoot : 

c If we compare the closing sentences of the ninth and 
tenth books it is evident that when the ninth book was 
written Eusebius was not aware of the rupture of Licinius 
with Constantine which happened in 314 ; 4 and it appears 

1 x. 4. 16, 60. 2 See e. g. x. 8. 3, 5 ff. 

3 See Lightfoot in Diet, of Christ. Biog. ii. 322 f. See also the excellent 
lecture on * Eusebius, the Father of Church History by Westcott, of 
which Lightfoot made use. It has been published in the volume 
entitled The Two Empires, the Church and the World, 1909. The diffi 
culty about Paulinus (Diet, of Christ. Biog. iv. 232) does not invalidate 
Lightfoot s reasoning. 

4 No doubt Westcott wrote in ignorance of the fact that Constantine 
and Licinius were at peace again in 315. But his argument seems to 


also that he was at the same time very imperfectly in 
formed of the course of affairs in the West, which led to the 
decisive victory of Constantine over Maxentius in 312, 
though he was well acquainted with the eastern campaign, 
which ended with the death of Maximin in 313. We may 
therefore suppose that the nine books were composed [rather 
completed] not long after the Edict of Milan in 313. l 

It has been remarked that the ninth book in its original 
form appears to have concluded with the Edict of Milan, 
or rather with the letter of Licinius founded upon it. 2 
This letter, issued at Nicomedia on June 13, 313, 3 cannot 
have been published south of the Taurus till after the 
East had been acquired by Licinius. Thus we may date 
the penultimate edition of the History about the end of 
313 or in the earlier part of 314. 

It probably contained the first nine books nearly in 
their present form. But not quite. For three sentences 
in Book ix show traces of revision. The words applied 
to Licinius in chapter 9, not yet at that time seized with 
madness, 4 almost proclaim themselves intruders by their 
unsuitability to the context. They were certainly added 
after the final breach between Constantine and Licinius. 
At the same time must have been inserted the similar 
remark about him lower down in the same chapter, his 
understanding had not yet at that time been turned to that 
madness into which he later fell. 5 So too when we find 
him described as one who then ruled G we recognize 

me to hold good. Schwartz dates the book in 315, on the ground that 
the letter of Constantine to Chrestus, bishop of Syracuse (x. 5. 21), 
originally belonged to it. 

1 Westcott, op. cit. p. 6. Perhaps it should rather have been said 
not long after the death of Maximin . For as long as the East was 
in the hands of Maximin, and he at war with Licinius, Eusebius would 
have little opportunity of acquiring information of western affairs. 

2 See Gwatkin, Early Church History, ii. 357. 

3 Lactantius, De Mort. Pers. 48. 

4 H. E. ix. 9. 1. * 12 . G Ht E ix 10 3 


the hand of a reviser who wrote after he had ceased to be 
Emperor. How the original text may have run in this 
place we cannot tell. But the three readings which have 
been mentioned are attested by practically all the extant 
authorities. They certainly came from Eusebius himself. 

A fourth passage must be mentioned, though we cannot 
speak of it with the same confidence. I have assumed 
that as first issued the book closed with the received 
ending, followed by the rescript of Licinius issued at 
Nicomedia. In place of that ending we find in B D 2 A 
a sentence identical with the opening sentence of Book x, 
and reasons have been given for the belief that the 
original ending was in fact transferred to the close 
of the entire work when Book x was added. Why 
was this change made ? Probably because Eusebius 
had decided to include in the new book a collection 
of imperial concessions to the Church. This collection 
would naturally begin with the most important of 
them all that which hitherto stood at the end of Book 
ix. But when it was gone the sentence which had 
introduced it became unmeaning. Something else had 
to be put in place of it ; and according to his common 
practice Eusebius made the same sentence serve both 
for the end of Book ix and the beginning of the book 
which was now made to follow it. 1 

We have called the edition containing nine books 
the penultimate rather than the first because the question 
whether it was preceded by another, or others, ought 
not to be prejudged. It has in fact been suggested that 
the ninth book, like the tenth, is a supplement to the 
original work. 2 We must now endeavour to appraise 
the likelihood of that suggestion being correct. 

1 See below, p. 289. 

2 M c Giffert, Eusebius (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers), pp. 334, 

1353 3 


In the long sentence with which Eusebius begins the 
first book of the Ecclesiastical History we find a full 
statement of the purpose of the whole work. He mentions, 
first of all, a number of subjects which obviously could not 
be dealt with in separate sections, such as the successions 
of the holy apostles , the rulers of the distinguished 
Christian communities, the founders of heretical systems, 
and so forth. The treatment of such subjects as these 
must evidently, in a work constructed on a chronological 
basis, proceed pari passu. But the historian intimates 
that, having followed all these different threads for some 
distance, he will in the end let most of them drop, and 
confine himself to a single topic. One of the many things 
which he proposes to set down in writing is an account of 
the occasions on which the divine word has been made 
war upon by the Gentiles and of the men who as each 
occasion came endured the conflict which through blood 
and tortures was fought on its behalf ; and having 
announced this as one of the topics to be dealt with, he 
proceeds, And it is also my purpose to relate the 
martyrdoms which took place after these in our own time 
and the propitious and gracious succour afforded at the 
end of all by our Saviour. This opening sentence, like 
most prefaces, must be taken, not as such a crude state 
ment of his aim as might be possible for the author to 
make when he first took up his pen, but rather as his 
reflection on his work when it had reached the form in 
which it was offered to the public. It therefore conveys 
to us the information that the last section of the History 
recorded a contemporary persecution and closed with the 
return of rest to the Church, rest which the writer clearly 
regarded as destined to be permanent. The point at 

340. These passages suggested the present Essay. But Schwartz has 
now discussed the question with much fuller knowledge of the data. 


which this last section begins is definitely marked. In 
the last sentence of the seventh book Eusebius tells us 
that having in it and the preceding books enlarged upon 
the subject of the succession of the apostles V he is now 
about to relate the conflicts in our own time of those who 
contended valiantly for piety . 

The final section of the work therefore begins with the 
eighth book. Where did it originally end? There are 
three incidents in the story of the great persecution each 
of which in its turn must have seemed the beginning of 
the final peace ; and each of them is related at the end of 
a book of the History. They are the defeat of Licinius, 
with which the work in its present form ends ; the Edict 
of Milan at the close of Book ix, the last book, as we have 
seen, of an earlier edition; and the Toleration Edict of 
Galerius recited in the las t chapter of Bookviii. Any one 
of these might have been called the succour of the Saviour . 
But had the last named, which is the earliest in point of 
date, any appearance of introducing permanent rest ? 

It seems to me that it must have been so regarded at the 
time. It was, to begin with for I believe the evidence 
warrants the statement 2 a renunciation, in the name of 

1 So viii. Pref., which is a re-statement of the substance of vii. 32. 32. 
In the latter the phrase is the matter of the successions . 

2 On this point the evidence is very strong. Lactantius (36. 3) 
speaks of the edict as indulgentia Christianis communi titulo data , 
where his point seems to be that Maximin was so base as to repudiate 
a document in which his own name appeared along with those of his 
fellow emperors. Eusebius twice states that the palinode was issued 
by the very men who had made war on the Church (H. E. viii. 13. 8 ; 
16. 1.) This implies that it ran in the name of more than one perse 
cutor. But if, as has been sometimes asserted, Maximin had no hand 
in it this would not be the case, since neither Constantine nor Licinius 
had persecuted. And it may be asked, could an edict have been issued 
in the names of three out of the four emperors, that of the fourth 
being omitted ? It is instructive to observe that the inscription found 
at Arykanda proves that the memorial of the citizens of that place, 

s 2 


all the four reigning emperors, of the policy which had till 
that moment been in theory common to all, and which had 
been carried into effect by two of them. That must have 
seemed likely to usher in a more peaceful era. As a 
matter of fact peace had been established over half the 
Empire for several years. Since the year of the abdication 
there had been no persecution in the West. And the new 
edict produced much effect elsewhere. It put an end 
to persecution everywhere except in the dominions of 
Maximin. And even there it was followed by a respite 
of six months. For that period there was no official 
persecution of Christians in any part of the Empire. 
Nothing can be plainer than that even the Christian 
subjects of Maximin believed that a lasting peace had come. 
One has only to read the first chapter of Eusebius s ninth 
book to be impressed with their absolute confidence that 
they were at the beginning of a new era. 1 What if 
Eusebius himself, in spite of comments with which later 
experience moved him to intersperse his facts in this very 
chapter, shared the confidence and the rejoicing of those 
six months ? If he did he must for the time have regarded 
Galerius s edict as the succour of our Saviour which had 
inaugurated lasting peace between Church and State 
the goal of Church history. There is nothing to prevent 
us, if the direct evidence points that way, from supposing 
that an edition probably the first of the Ecclesiastical 
History was completed and published during the six 
months peace between May and November 311, and that 

though actually presented to Maximin, was addressed to all the 
reigning emperors, Maximin, Constantine and Licinius. The only 
evidence on the other side is the fact that Maximin s name does 
not occur in the copy of the palinode given by Eusebius. An 
opportunity will occur hereafter of discussing the question whether its 
absence can be accounted for. 
1 See above, p. 214. 


it included only our first eight books. What then is the 
evidence ? 

Let us turn first to the Preface to the eighth book. 
There we have a formal statement which implies that the 
book to which it is prefixed was to be the last of the work : 

Having described in seven entire books 1 the succession 
of the apostles we regard it as a duty in this eighth 
fasciculus 2 to commend to the knowledge of those who 
shall come after us the events of our own time 3 which 
are worthy of permanent record some part, at least, of the 
most remarkable of them. 

It is clear that when he penned this sentence Eusebius 
intended to confine all that he had to say about con 
temporary happenings to a single book, and that it was to 
be the last book of the History. The inference, if the words 
are to be accepted in their natural meaning, is that Book 
ix was an afterthought an appendix added after the 
original design had been completed. Possibly, however, 
some may prefer to adopt the alternative view, that as he 
went on Eusebius changed his mind, finding that the 
matter which he had accumulated for a single book could 
more conveniently be distributed between two. In that 
case the present Books viii and ix are really two divisions 
of the projected eighth book. 

The latter of these two views is scarcely probable. 
That which we know as the ninth book seems to have been 
a separate book from the beginning. It was certainly such 
when the tenth book was added. For not only is the latter 
designated the tenth book 4 in its opening sentences; 

t. I do not suppose that it will be contended that this 
word indicates Books viii, ix, or Books viii-x. 

3 That he means by this phrase the history of the persecution is 
evident from vii. 32. 32. 


Eusebius actually makes a point of the fact that it is the 
tenth : Fitly, he writes, under l a perfect number we 
shall compose the perfect and panegyrical book 2 of the 
renewal of the Churches. But we may go further back. 
A passage which will be quoted immediately proves that 
if the original plan of the eighth book was modified, the 
modification had already been made by the time the 
writer reached the thirteenth chapter. Nowif in the course 
of writing, or shortly afterwards, Eusebius had made out of 
his intended eighth book an eighth and a ninth, it is 
scarcely likely that he would not have altered the opening 
sentence in such a way as to make it agree with the 

But there are two other passages in the book which 
support the construction I have put on the Preface. It is 
plain that when he wrote them Eusebius believed that the 
edict of Galerius had stayed the persecution, and that he 
was unaware that any renewal of it had taken place since 
its publication. 

The first of these has been referred to just now. I 
must quote it, as I shall have occasion to make use of it 
again. The historian has made mention of a large num 
ber of martyrs, concluding with the remark that there 
were thousands more commemorated by the Christian 
communities in every country and place. He then pro 
ceeds : 

The task is not ours to chronicle the conflicts of those 
men who contended all over the world for piety towards 
the Divine Being, and to relate in detail all that happened 
to them ; but let it be done by those who beheld their 
sufferings. Those with which I myself was conversant I 
will make known to posterity in another treatise. In the 
present book, 2 however, I will subjoin to the things already 
said the recantation of those who wrought against us and 

1 cv. 2 \6yov. 


the things that happened from the beginning of the per 
secution most profitable as they are for my readers. * 

First, by way of commentary on this passage let it be 
noted that Eusebius here sketches accurately the contents 
of the remainder of Book viii. He immediately afterwards 
takes up the thread of his story where he had let it fall in 
chapter 6, and proceeds, with one or two digressions which 
will be mentioned presently, to the end, concluding with 
the text of the recantation , the edict of G-alerius. Thus, 
as already observed, 2 he had determined at least thus 
early that the eighth book should end as it now does. 

But again, in the passage before us he exhibits no con 
sciousness that the edict was not the end of the persecu 
tion or that the Christians had any further sufferings to 
endure after its issue. He intimates too that, in accor 
dance with his plan, he omits many martyrdoms, especially 
a number which he himself had witnessed. The latter 
were to be related in a treatise not yet written. There 
can be little doubt that the treatise referred to is one of 
the recensions of the Martyrs of Palestine, which was thus 
intended to serve in some sort as a parallel to the History 
on which he was then engaged. It is surely then most 
significant that, as has already been pointed out, 3 the last 
martyrdom in that work, both in the Syriac and the 
Greek, took place only a few days later than the issue of 
the recantation . 

1 H. E. viii. 13. 7 f. eoi/ ni/a rf]v ircidav oiKovfJLevrjv vrrep rfjs (is TO 6elov 
fv&eftfias TjywvicTfjievwv ypa<prj Trapadidovai rovs ad\ovs eV aKpiftfs re exacrra 

TCOV 7Tpl dVTOVS (TVp-^e^rjKOTdJV l(TTOpeiv OV% TjfJLtTfpOV } TCOV 6 O\l/l TO. Tlpa- 

y/iara 7rapfi\J]<p6T(i)v iSiov av yeVoiro* ois ye prjv avrbs napfyfvofjirjv, TOVTOVS 
not To7s fietf f] yva)pip.ovs Si eVe pas TroirjcrofjLfii ypafprjs. Kara, ye ^v 
rov irapovra \6yov TTJV TraXivcoSiav TWV Trepl f) elpyaa^fvaiv rols elprjfjievois 
^fut TO. re e np^rjs rov 8ia>yp.ov av/n/Se/S/jKora, xpr)<rip,a)TaTa Tvyyfavovru 

Above, p. 262. 3 Above, p. 209. 


The other passage occurs somewhat later, at the point 
where he begins to speak at length of the edict of Galerius. 
Here he uses a phrase which clearly indicates that with it 
the persecution came to an end. He declares that the 
emperors the very persons by whom the warfare was 
in our time prosecuted changing their minds, in a most 
wonderful way, issued a recantation, thereby quenching 
the fire of persecution which had blazed forth to so great 
a height against us \ l This plain statement that the 
edict of Galerius quenched the flames of persecution 
is not in accordance with subsequent events. It directly 
contradicts Book ix, the subject of which is a recrudes 
cence of persecution, which seemed far more terrible than 
the former . 2 It could not have been made after the 
peace of the Church had again been disturbed by Maximin 
towards the end of 311. 

But that is not all. After thus describing the effect of 
the edict Eusebius immediately proceeds to point out its 
true source. 3 It had no human origin. It was not to be 
attributed to the kindness of emperors who had raged 
more furiously as time went on ; it rather proceeded from 
Divine Providence. For on the one hand God was being 
reconciled to His people, and on the other He was punish 
ing Galerius, the author of the troubles, by inflicting him 
with the foul disease which wrung from him the recanta 
tion. What is all this but an expansion of the phrase the 
succour of our Saviour , by which Eusebius had already 
indicated the end of the persecution, and the last incident 
to be recorded in his History ? In a similar passage in the 

1 H. E. viii. 16. 1. rore drjra Kal ol Kaff fjfjias apxovrfs, avrot &} e /ceu/oi 
dC coV TraXai TCI TVV K.a6 f) cvrjpyflro TroXe/icoj/, 7rapadoorara 

rrjv yjxo/zjp, ira\iva>iav fjdov xpqcrrots ircpl r\^v -rrpoypd^aa-iv Kal 
yuacriv rjufpcoTUTois TTJV rt /ue ya a(p6el<rav TOV 3<a>y/*ov jrvpK.diav a 

2 Ibid. ix. 6. 4. 3 Ibid> viii< 16> 2> 


Martyrs of Palestine 1 the same edict is spoken of as a 
manifestation of the Divine favour towards the Church. 
No language so direct and forcible connects either the 
final edict of Maximin or the Edict of Milan with the 
Divine intervention. 

One other fact which seems to point to the existence of 
an early edition of the History containing only the first 
eight books may be mentioned here. It is the insertion 
at the end of Book viii, in some manuscripts, of the brief 
Appendix which appears in that place in all the printed 
editions. It is probably an excerpt from another work of 
Eusebius in which he dilated upon the miserable deaths 
of the persecuting emperors, contrasting them with the 
happy end of Constantius. That it should have come into 
its present place when the eighth book was immediately 
followed by the ninth is scarcely possible. Schwartz in 
deed supposes that it was added to the eighth book by 
Eusebius himself when he published the first edition of 
the tenth book, and therefore after the ninth book had 
been added. He holds that it was omitted in the final 
edition, some parts of it being at the same time inserted in 
the thirteenth chapter of Book viii. It appears to me that 
in itself the supposition that Eusebius thus destroyed the 
connexion between the eighth and ninth books is wholly 
improbable. One event recorded in the Appendix the 
death of Diocletian if not later than the last included in 
Book ix, cannot have preceded it by many months. 2 And 
when Schwartz attempts to work out the details of his 
theory 3 he finds difficulties which he does not surmount, and 
which are perhaps insurmountable. He is also forced to 

1 M. P. (Grk.) 13. 14. In both places the words CTTLO-KOTT^V evp.evrj Kal 
i\6Q) are reminiscent of i. 1. 2. 

2 The date 316 is strongly attested. But Lact. 43. 1 seems to imply 
that Diocletian died before Maximin. Cp. Aurelius Victor, Epit. 39. 

3 p. lii. 


regard the sentence which now closes Book viii It is now 
time to review what happened after these things as hav 
ing been introduced in the last edition, the edition, namely, 
in which the tenth book, as he thinks, was remodelled. 1 
It could, indeed, hardly have stood as an introduction to 
the Appendix. But why it should have been written long 
after the ninth book had been published rather than when 
it was first added to the work is not easily understood. 
But the fact is that the evidence that the Appendix was 
intended by Eusebius to follow Book viii, or to form a 
part of the History, is not strong. 2 It is found only in the 
manuscripts A E E and their derivatives. In the exemplar 
from which the group A T E E was derived it had a 
heading 3 which stated that it was found in some manu 
scripts, toy X^TTOV : from which it may be inferred that in 
the manuscripts from which it was taken it did not follow 
Book viii without a break. A heading must have preceded 
it ; and it possibly suggested a doubt as to whether it was 
really part of the book. Thus, perhaps, we may account for 
its omission from T. It is not unlikely that it is an extract 
from a lost work of Eusebius, added to some copies of the 
first edition of the History which remained in circulation 
after the second edition in nine books appeared. 

But it now becomes necessary to ascertain, as far as 
possible, what passages in the earlier books of the History 
must, on our theory, have been added after the work in 
its original form had been completed. With this end in 
view I shall pass in review all the sentences known to 

1 p. 794. 

2 The fact that Zonaras (xii. 33) had it in his copy of Book viii 
counts for little. 

A: TO as Xflnov %v THTIV dvnypityois ev TOJ 17 \6y<*>. That the word 
\fl7rov comes from the exemplar is confirmed by the remark in E that 
the Appendix was added in some manuscripts ofy i? \6iWra KT\. 


me which rest under the suspicion of betraying knowledge 
of events which took place after November 311. 

1. H. E. i. 9. 2 f. Here Eusebius exposes an ana 
chronism in certain memoirs against our Saviour which 
had quite recently been put in circulation. 1 These are 
no doubt the forged memoirs of Pilate and our Saviour 
which in 312 received the approval of Maximin,and were 
ordered by him to be publicly exhibited and taught in the 
schools. 2 But, though in 312 they were still recent for 
geries, it is unreasonable to suppose that they had not 
for some time been in circulation before Maximin made 
use of them for his own purposes. There is nothing to 
compel us to believe that they had not come into Eusebius s 
hands by 311 ; and it is to be observed that there is no hint 
in the passage before us that they had received imperial 
recognition. It need not therefore be regarded as a later 

2. H. E. vii. 32. 31. Peter, bishop of Alexandria, is 
said to have been beheaded in the ninth year of the per 
secution (312) after an episcopate of twelve entire years. 3 
This statement obviously could not have been made in 311. 
But if an account of his episcopate up to that year had 
place here in the original edition, it was inevitable that 
in 313 it should be completed by a notice of his martyr 
dom. Eusebius could not leave untouched a sentence which 
implied that he was still alive. And the passage seems 
to bear traces of the reviser s hand, for the chronological 
notes are verbally inconsistent. Peter is said to have been 
bishop for less than three 4 years before the persecution, 

1 OVKOVV ara(f>S)S aTreXjjXe-yicrai TO TrXdoyza ra>i> Kara TOV (raTijpos 

2 H. E. ix. 5. 1. 

3 ( < oXois 8voKaidKa friavrols. A notice of his martyrdom appears 
also in ix. 6. 2. 

4 rpicrlv ovS 6 Xot? ereviv. 


to have been martyred in the ninth year of the persecu 
tion, and yet to have ruled the Church for twelve entire 
years. So contradictory a remark could hardly have been 
made originally. The confusion may have arisen from the 
use in the revision of a different system of reckoning years. 
Peter s death may be dated November 312. 1 If he became 
bishop shortly before September 300, his rule would have 
been counted as twelve entire years, the years beginning 
in September. But from before September 300 to the 
beginning of the persecution would be not three entire 
years , the years beginning, as the persecution-years did, 
in January. 

3. H. E. viii. 6. 6. The martyrdom of Anthimus is said 
to have taken place at this time , an expression which is 
lower down denned as meaning at the beginning of the 
persecution . This section comes between the notices of 
the first and second edicts of Diocletian. But it is to be 
noticed that some of the events referred to in it seem to 
belong to a later period. The putting to death of 
whole families, the drowning of Christians, the digging 
up of bodies which had been buried and casting them into 
the sea, suggest rather the rule of G-alerius than that of 
Diocletian. It is not probable that they were connected 
with the fires at the palace soon after the first edict, as the 
reader of Eusebius might suppose. It seems likely, there 
fore, that Eusebius has gone astray in his dates. And 
this may be accounted for if we observe that he appears 
at this point to have depended on a document for his in 
formation. 2 If the document, giving a confused account 
of the persecution at Nicomedia, mentioned the fires in 

1 November 24, 311, according to Schwartz: but the ninth year of 
the persecution was 312. See further below, p. 274. 

2 o re \6yos e^fi. Was this document the letter of the martyr Lucian 
mentioned below ? 


connexion with the other things here recorded we can 
easily understand that it might have misled Eusebius. 
And so we need not lay too much stress on the date 
assigned by him to the martyrdom of Anthimus. But 
some writers hold that the martyrdom did not take place 
until late in 312. In that case Eusebius has made a mis 
take of over nine years. Considering the eminence which 
must have belonged to the bishop of Nicomedia, and the 
opportunities of obtaining information which Eusebius 
possessed, this is very improbable. We shall not accept 
this view unless the evidence for it is very strong/ 

We may take Hunziker l as its best exponent. He 
points out that Lactantius says nothing of this martyrdom 
in the chapter following that in which he gives the 
fires, 2 though he mentions the execution of presbyteri 
ac ministri. But in that chapter Lactantius gives no 
names of martyrs, and he obviously includes events not 
immediately connected with the fires, but belonging to a 
later time. It is absurd to suppose that bishops were wholly 
exempt from persecution during the whole period contem 
plated in the chapter. But again, Anthimus is mentioned 
along with Lucian, who certainly suffered in 312, in H. E. 
viii. 13. 1 f. The arrangement of that passage, however, is 
not chronological but topographical. The juxtaposition of 
the two martyrdoms is due to the fact that they both took 
place at Nicomedia. 3 A third argument is derived from a 

1 0. Hunziker, Zur Regierung u. Christenverfolgung des Kaisers 
Diocletianus u. seiner Nachfolger, in Biidinger s Untersuchungen zur 
romischen Kaisergeschichte, vol. ii (1868), p. 281. 

2 De Mort. Pers. 15. 

3 If we suppose that Eusebius, when he wrote H. E. viii. 13, regarded 
Anthimus and Lucian as having suffered at the same period we must 
believe either that he dated the martyrdom of Anthimus in 312, which 
contradicts viii. 6, or that he dated that of Lucian in 303, which con 
tradicts ix. 6. 


letter of Lucian, announcing the martyrdom of Anthimus 
to the Church of Antioch. 1 But there is nothing in the frag 
ment of the letter which remains to show that Lucian was 
a prisoner when he wrote, as Hunziker states, and nothing 
to imply that the time of his own martyrdom was drawing 
near. Hunziker also cites three Acts of Martyrs includ 
ing the late and unreliable Greek Acts of Anthimus him 
self in which Maximian (i. e. either Galerius or Maximin) 
is named as the Emperor. But who will attach much 
weight to such evidence on such a point ? Finally, if the 
Greek Acts of Anthimus date his martyrdom September 3, 
and if this suits well enough the assumption that he suffered 
in the autumn of 312 and Lucian somewhat later in the same 
year, there is nothing in the text of Eusebius to prohibit 
the belief that Anthimus was beheaded as late as Sep 
tember 303. We should be inclined to place even later 
some of the events referred to in the same section. On 
the whole the arguments for dating the martyrdom of 
Anthimus after 311 do not appear to be strong enough to 
stand against the express statement of Eusebius. 

4. H. E. viii. 9. 1-5. This is a passage relating to the 
sufferings of confessors and martyrs in the Thebaid. 
Before examining it we must remark that it occurs 
in a section of the book in which we might expect 
additions to be made, if it was re-edited some years after 
its first publication. At the end of the sixth chapter, after 
mentioning the third edict, Eusebius for a considerable 
space 2 entirely abandons the chronological method of 
arranging his materials. He gives a list of martyrs, with 

1 The extant fragment of the letter, preserved in the Paschal 
Chronicle under the year 303 (Dindorf, p. 516), runs thus : Ao-Trdterai 
vfMS xP* ^Tras 6pov papTvpcov. 6i>ayyeXio/zai 8e v/zay, ws "Avdipos 6 TraTray 
TCO TOV naprvpiov SpoV&> Tf\i<b6r). It is printed in Routh, Rell. Sacr. iv. 5. 

2 H. E. viii. 7. 1-13. 7. 


some details of their sufferings, disposed, not according to 
the order of time, but mainly according to the places 
where they suffered the Egyptians who were martyred 
at Tyre, while he himself was there, those who suffered 
in Egypt, in the Thebaid, at Alexandria, in Phrygia, in 
Arabia, at Antioch, in Pontus ending up with a list of 
episcopal martyrs. Clearly these examples are not taken 
from any one period of the persecution, but belong for the 
most part to the later stage which began with the issue 
of the fourth edict in April 304. l It is plain that in pre 
paring a new edition an author, and more especially an 
unsystematic writer like Eusebius, would be tempted 
to complete such a section as this by adding in their 
proper places the names of illustrious martyrs who had 
been brought to his knowledge after the work, in its 
original form, had left his hands. We can recognize such 
insertions with certainty only when there is evidence that 
they belong to a later date than the edict of Galerius. 

One of them must be at least a part of the account of 
the martyrs of the Thebaid. For Eusebius writes as an 
eyewitness of the evil work of one day : We ourselves 
saw, when we came to the places, many crowded together 
in the course of one day. 2 But it appears that from the 
beginning of the persecution till the year 311 he was in 
Caesarea and its neighbourhood. He does not seem to 
have visited Egypt till after the edict of that year. 3 Thus 
we must count at least 4, 5 as an insertion. We shall 
find reason just now to believe that the earlier sections 
of the same chapter, though in themselves they contain 
nothing to mark them as later than 311, were probably 
added at the same time. 

But first an attempt must be made to show that the 

1 Above, p. 202. 2 4. 

3 See Diet, of Chritt. Biog. ii. 311 f., and above, p. 198. 


later sections and the whole of the following chapter, 
containing accounts of Philoromus and Phileas, and an 
epistle of the latter, belong to the earlier period. Accord 
ing to the Acts of Phileas and Philoromus 1 these two 
persons were beheaded on the same day after examination 
before Culcianus. Since Culcianus was a creature of 
Maximin 2 this fixes the date not earlier than the end of 
305. The later limit is determined thus. A letter is extant, 
in a Latin version, which was written in the names 
of Phileas and three other Egyptian bishops, protesting 
against ordinations performed by Meletius within the 
jurisdiction of Peter, bishop of Alexandria. The 
bishops were at the time in prison. After their martyr 
dom Peter, from his exile, wrote a letter directing that 
communication should not be held with Meletius. 3 "We 
may safely infer that the martyrdom of Phileas took place 
a considerable time before that of Peter, who probably 
suffered in November 312, immediately after the 
resumption of persecution by Maximin in Egypt. He 
seems, indeed, to have been the first martyr of that 
short season of violence. Thus we may place the death 
of Phileas before the edict of Galerius. It is in fact 
a plausible conjecture that Peter returned from his exile 
shortly after its publication. 4 

But further, Phileas and Philoromus seem to have been 
executed at Alexandria. This is apparently the statement 
of all the authorities which name the place of the martyr 
dom. 5 And it is supported by the passage quoted from 
Phileas by Eusebius, in which, writing in prison shortly 
before his death, he describes the persecution in that city. 

1 Ruinart, Acta sincera, 1713, p. 494. 2 H. E. ix. 11. 4. 

3 Routh, Eell. Sacr. iv. 91 ff., 94. 

4 Diet, of Christ. Biog. iv. 333. See also below, p. 274. 
6 See Valois on H. E. viii. 9. 


That, at any rate, Phileas did not suffer in the Thebaid l is 
pretty certain, since he was bishop of Thmuis in Lower 

These facts show that the account of Philoromus and 
Phileas, and the narrative of the persecution by the 
latter, cannot have been intended by Eusebius as an illus 
tration of his general remarks about the martyrs of the 
Thebaid, 2 but must rather be read with what he says in the 
previous chapter about the Egyptians who suffered in 
their own land . The intervening passage obscures the 
connexion, and so might have been suspected as a later 
addition, apart from any theory as to the date of the 
composition of the book in which it is found. 

5. H. E. viii. 13. 1-7. Here we have a list of rulers of 
the Church who suffered martyrdom. The following are 
mentioned : Anthimus, bishop of Nicomedia ; Lucian, 
a presbyter of Antioch ; Tyrannion, bishop of Tyre ; 
Zenobius, a presbyter of Sidon ; Silvanus, bishop of the 
churches about Emesa ; Silvanus, bishop of the churches 
about Gaza ; Peleus and Nilus, Egyptian bishops ; Pam- 
philus ; Peter, bishop of Alexandria, and with him the 
presbyters Faustus, Dius and Ammonius ; Phileas, Hesy- 
chius,Pachymiusand Theodorus,Egyptian bishops. There 
are in all eleven bishops and six presbyters. Of these, 
eight certainly suffered before the short peace which 
followed the edict of Galerius, namely, Silvanus of 
Gaza, 3 Peleus, Nilus, 4 Pamphilus, 5 Phileas, Hesychius, 
Pachymius, and Theodorus, 6 to whom we may add 

1 Epiphanius, Haer. 68. 1, makes Culcianus praeses of the Thebaid, 
but he may have been misled by Eusebius. 

2 9. 1-5. 3 M. P. (Grk.) 7. 3 ; 13. 4 f. ; Cureton, pp. 24, 47. 
4 Ibid. 13. 3 ; Cureton, p. 46. 5 Ibid. 11 ; Cureton, p. 36. 

6 These are the authors of the letter against Meletius referred to 
above. M c Giffert, after remarking that Silvanus of Emesa, Peter of 
Alexandria, and Lucian suffered in the year 312 or thereabouts , 


Anthimus. 1 On the other hand, Lucian, Silvanus of 
Emesa, Peter of Alexandria and his three companions 
were all ( perfected in the later persecution of Maxi- 
min. 2 Of Tyrannion and Zenobius nothing is known. 
Thus six (perhaps eight) of the seventeen martyrdoms 
mentioned were, on our theory, added when the book 
was revised. The account of them occupies about half 
the paragraph. 

Such additions, as we have already remarked, are no 
more than might be expected in this section of the book. 
But it is worth while to note the way in which Peter of 
Alexandria is spoken of. Eusebius s language is not free 
from ambiguity. But he seems to call him * first of those 
who were perfected at Alexandria and throughout the 
whole of Egypt and the Thebaid . 3 This is not true to 
fact, for Phileas and his fellow-bishops suffered before 
him. But it is explained if we take the meaning to be 
that he was the protomartyr of the persecution which 
began in 312. That this was the case seems to be implied 
by the unexpectedness of his execution. 4 It is not 
difficult to understand that the epithet first might be 
applied to him inadvertently in this sense, if the words 
relating to him are an addition ; but not so easy if the 
entire sentence, containing also the names of Phileas and 
the rest, was penned at the same time. 

It must be admitted as a difficulty in the way of the 

adds, We may assume it as probable that all mentioned in this 
chapter suffered about the same time : an observation which, if it 
has any definite meaning, is contradicted by his subsequent notes. 
1 See above, pp. 268 ff. 2 H. E. ix. 6. 

3 H. E. viii. 13. 7 T&V S* eV AXeai>8peias . . . Tf\L(>6tvTO)v irpwros 
Uerpof . . . avaycypa^Bo) (cp. 1). If the words are to be rendered 
Let Peter be first mentioned it is hard to see why the Thebaid is 
referred to. No examples of martyrdom from that region are given, 
nor indeed, it seems, from any part of Egypt outside Alexandria. 

4 H. E. ix. 6. 2. 


theory here proposed that it obliges us to assume that 
the mention of the martyrdoms of Peter of Alexandria, 
Lucian of Antioch, and Silvanus of Emesa in the seventh 1 
and eighth books was inserted at the very time when the 
ninth book was added ; for they are all related again in 
that book. 2 The difficulty is perhaps sufficiently met by 
observing the difference of the contexts in which they 
occur in the different books. The only way of removing 
it is by carrying forward the date of the composition of 
the eighth book to a period subsequent to the last of these 
martyrdoms. And this Schwartz does. He puts it 
between January 312 and the summer of 313. If, as I 
believe, Peter was put to death in November 312, he must 
bring it yet further down. But this lands us in the very 
much greater difficulty of supposing that Eusebius put 
forth the first edition of his History when the persecution 
of Maximin was at its height. In spite of the pleading 
of Schwartz 3 this seems to me impossible. But even if 
the book was written after the martyrdom of Peter, we 
still have his martyrdom mentioned both in the seventh 
and eighth books, and that of Anthimus mentioned twice 
in the eighth. Is that very much easier to believe than 
that three martyrdoms were inserted in earlier books 
at the same time that they were recounted in the ninth ? 
6. H.E. viii. 13. 15. Mention is made of the destruction 
of the public memorials of Maximian. If, as Lactantius 
tells us, 4 this contributed to the death of Diocletian, 
which seems to have taken place not earlier than the 
middle of 313, 5 this note is probably later than 311. But, on 
the other hand, the destruction of the memorials might be 
expected immediately to follow Maximian s death, which 
occurred in 310. 

1 See no. 2. 2 Cp. Schwartz, p. Ivi. 3 p. Ivii. 

4 De Mart. Pers. 42. 5 Cod. Theod. xiii. 10. 2. See above, p. 265. 

T 2 


7. H. E. viii. 14. 7-16 a. The sections relating to Maxi- 
min, and a few other passing references to him in the same 
chapter, 1 are probably insertions. The references to the 
secret alliance between Maxentius and Maximin, 2 which 
followed the betrothal of Licinius and Constantia (312), 3 
to the establishment of Maximin s heathen hierarchy, 4 
and to the victory of Licinius at Campus Serenus, 5 must 
all be dated after 311. It is true that these allusions 
might be deleted without altering the general drift of the 
passage. But the awkward construction of the chapter it 
self lends countenance to the hypothesis that the mention 
of Maximin in this place was an afterthought. All the 
preceding sections are devoted to Maxentius ; and to him 
Eusebius suddenly returns at 16 b, in a paragraph which 
would have had a more appropriate place in the earlier 
part of the chapter. 

8. H. E. viii. 15. This chapter professes to give an 
account in general terms of the state of affairs throughout 
the Empire during the entire c decade 6 of the persecution. 
And the picture is faithful enough, though no doubt 
rhetorical and exaggerated, until we reach the last sen 
tence. That sentence, however, merely from the point of 
view of grammar, reads like an addition, and, unlike the 
rest of the chapter, it contains a note of time which 
indicates that it did not apply to the period as a whole. 
It runs thus : 

To these are added the famine and pestilence which 
came after these things ; about which we shall relate what 
is fitting at the proper time. 

The allusion is apparently to the calamities which over 
took Maximin in 312, recorded in H. E. ix. 8. According 
to that chapter they did not extend to the whole Empire, 

1 16 b, 18. * 7. s Lact 43 . Zos> iia 7> 

4 9. 5 7. 6 fcjcae row. Cp. 16 1. 


but were confined to Maximin s dominions. The sentence 
therefore proclaims itself to be an intruder. Probably 
when the book was revised oKraerovs in the first line was 
changed into tfe/caeroi;?, and the tale of misery was com 
pleted by adding the awkward reference to the newly- 
written ninth book. 

9. H.E. viii. 16. 1. The opening sentence of the 
sixteenth chapter runs thus : 

Such were the events which continued throughout the 
entire persecution, which in the tenth year by the grace 
of God was completely stayed, but after the eighth year, 
however, began to decrease. l 

Comment on the grammatical clumsiness of this is 
almost needless. As originally conceived the sentence 
can hardly have contained two participial clauses co 
ordinate with each other and agreeing with the same 
substantive. But, apart from this, certain questions 
suggest themselves. Why was the tenth year mentioned 
here at all ? Why, being mentioned, was it referred to 
before instead of after the eighth? And why was so 
misleading a statement made as that the persecution began 
to be less after the eighth year ? For, in one sense, it had 
begun to abate long before : there had been no persecution 
in the West since 305. In another part of the Empire 
the European dominions of Galerius it came absolutely 
to an end, not after but in the eighth year. Under the 
sway of Maximin, on the other hand, after the eighth 
year, according to Eusebius himself, it attained the height 
of its fury. And the sentence becomes even more sus 
picious when it is considered in connexion with the re 
mainder of the book. In it, if we except the last line, 
there is no further reference to anything that happened 

1 TotaOr r\v ra 5ia Travrbs TOV Siary^ou TrapareraKora, fie/carco p.(v crtt avv 
6eov ^tiptn 7ravTf\(H)S TreTrat^eVou, \a>(f)av yt p.r t v /ACT oy&oov eras e 


after April 311. It is wholly taken up with the edict of 
Galerius, and we have seen that it leaves the impression 
that that edict ended the persecution. It would simplify 
matters if we might regard the sentence as an editorial re 
vision of one which ran somewhat as follows : Such were 
the events which continued throughout the entire per 
secution, which in the eighth year, by the grace of God, 
was completely stayed. l Such a remark would impera 
tively call for revision when the ninth book was added. 

10. H.E. viii. 17. 3. Here begins the text of the 
edict of Galerius, in which all the authorities omit the 
names and titles of the Emperor Maximin. They must 
have been in the edict. 2 Their omission in Eusebius s 
translation might have been due to accident. 3 But the 
similar omission of the name and titles of Licinius in the 
manuscripts M B D and 2 A does not admit of this 
explanation, and must be regarded as a deliberate 
excision after the fall of that Emperor, by Eusebius or the 
scribe of the exemplar of this group. Hence it is probable 
that the name of Maximin was deleted when Book ix was 
added after his death. 

11. H.E. viii. 17. 11. The remark It is now time to 
examine what happened after these things must obviously 
have been penned when the ninth book was added. We 
may compare the very similar closing sentence of the 
Theophania, Book ii. 

1 Compare the last sentence of M. P. (Grk.) 11. 

2 See above, p. 259. 

3 From the Arykanda inscription compared with this edict we may 
infer that the four emperors would have been named in the order 
Galerius, Maximin, Constantino, Licinius. But the imperial names of 
the first two were identical-Imperator Caesar Galerius Valerius 
Maximianus (Maximinus). The dropping out of the second would be 
an instance of a very common form of clerical error. It might have 
occurred in the autograph of Eusebius, or in a very early copy. 


We have now considered eleven passages, as to which 
there was some ground to suspect that if the History 
originally ended with the eighth book they must have been 
revised when the ninth book was added. In two perhaps 
three of them the suspicion proved to be not well 
founded. 1 There remain eight or nine passages which we 
must suppose to have been altered or inserted in the second 
edition, 2 three of them of considerable length. 3 If it seems 
difficult to believe that Eusebius revised his work in such 
drastic fashion, it must be borne in mind that some of the 
changes which we suppose to have been made in the text 
were on our hypothesis absolutely necessary emendations, 4 
and others just such alterations as might have been ex 
pected if a revision was undertaken at all. 5 And it must 
further be remembered that six of the eight passages bear 
more or less obvious marks of the reviser s hand, quite apart 
from any theory as to the date of the completion of the 
first eight books. 6 These passages lend support to the 
theory, the main arguments for which have been drawn 
from considerations of a different kind. 

Assuming then that the Ecclesiastical History in an early, 
if not the earliest edition, ended with Book viii, we may 
now consider the relation to it of the Martyrs of Palestine. 

All conclusions on this question must be held with some 
reserve owing to the uncertainty which still remains as to 
the relation between the two recensions of the Martyrs. 
Is the longer recension, represented by the Syriac version 
and some fragments of its underlying Greek, an earlier 
edition of which the Greek recension usually printed with 
the History is an abridgement ? or is the former an ex- 

1 Nos. 1, 3, and perhaps no. 6. 

2 Nos. 2, 4-11. 

3 Nos. 4, 5, 7. 4 Nos. 2, 8, 9. 

5 Nos. 4, 5. 6 Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9. Cp. no. 10. 


pansion. of the latter ? Lightfoot held the former view, 
and I believe rightly. 1 His argument is apparently based 
on the assumption that the recension which is at once 
more diffuse, more didactic, and obviously intended 
mainly for readers who lived in Caesarea and its neigh 
bourhood, has a prima facie claim to priority over a 
recension of reduced bulk from which local allusions and 
hortatory passages have been excised, and which bears 
marks throughout of being designed for a larger public. 
The argument is of course not conclusive. But it may be 
supplemented by a more minute comparison between the 
two recensions. 

For example, there is a passage in which Eusebius, after 
giving a short account of the death of the praeses Urban, 
proceeds thus in the Greek : 

* But let this be said by us by the way. But a fitting 
time may come when we shall relate at leisure the ends 
and the disgraceful deaths of those impious men who 
specially made war against us, [both of Maximin himself 
and of those associated with him]. * 

The Syriac is more diffuse in the first clause; but in 
the remainder it is practically identical with the Greek, 
except that it omits the words which I have enclosed in 
brackets. Now these words are so alien to the context 
which obviously refers not to the Emperor, but to Urban 
and his like that they rest under grave suspicion of 
being a later addition. If, then, they are part of the 
original text of the shorter recension we can scarcely avoid 
the conclusion that it is later than the longer, which lacks 
them. But let us make the contrary assumption. Let us 
suppose that the clause about Maximin belonged to the 
original text and was omitted in a later edition. It follows 

1 See Diet, of Christ. Biog. ii. 320 f. 

2 M. P. (Grk.) 7. 8 ; Cureton, p. 26. 


that the projected work of Eusebius which is referred to 
was at first intended to include Maximin, and that its 
scope was afterwards restricted to such underlings as 
Urban and Firmilian a direction which the development 
of the plan is not very likely to have taken. It will 
presently appear indeed that I do not regard the words 
relating to Maximin as having had a place in the text of 
the shorter recension as first written. I am therefore 
obliged to concede that, so far as this passage is concerned, 
the longer recension of the Martyrs may have been later 
than the shorter. But I believe it most improbable that 
the passage as it stands in the Syriac text was written after 
the shorter text had assumed its present form, or, indeed, 
after the death of Maximin. No Palestinian writer would 
have planned a book which should recount the deaths of 
a few praesides of the province and omit that of their 
master the arch persecutor, if it had already taken 
place. 1 

The impression that the shorter recension of the Martyrs 
is later in date than the longer is left by two passages of 
the former which have no parallel in the latter. They 
relate to the Tyrian martyr Ulpian 2 and the Egyptian 
confessor John. 3 It is obvious that these sections are 
more in place in the edition of the work which was 

1 Schwartz (p.lxi) doubts whether Eusebius ever really intended to 
write such a book, in spite of his express statement. But he might well 
have thought of doing so, while Maximin still lived. As I understand 
Schwartz, he supposes that the shorter recension, with its reference to 
the death of Maximin, was written before the ninth book of the His 
tory, the longer a good many years afterwards, when the promise to 
relate the death of Maximin had already been fulfilled in that book. 
The clause referring to him was accordingly struck ou-t, but the re 
mainder of the sentence survives, though it may be doubted whether 
Eusebius had any intention of carrying into effect the design of which 
it speaks. All this seems most unlikely. 

2 M. P. (Grk.) 5. 1. 3 Ibid. 13. 6-8. 


intended for wider circulation than in that which was 
addressed to Palestinian readers. But the fact that both 
of them interrupt the sequence of the narrative marks 
them as later additions. The narrative about Ulpian stands 
between the martyrdoms of the brothers Apphianus and 
Aedesius ; it is appended rather awkwardly to the former 
with the connecting particle 8e ; and it might be omitted 
without the alteration of a single word of the preceding 
or following text. Eusebius actually apologizes for its 
introduction at this part of the treatise on the ground 
that, like Apphianus, Ulpian was cast into the sea. The 
reminiscences of John are intruded into the middle of 
the story of Silvanus, bishop of Gaza, and others who 
dwelt in a place by themselves and suffered martyrdom. 
John does not seem to have been one of them, though he 
was a companion of Silvanus. Eusebius tells how he saw 
him for the first time in the midst of a large assembly 
repeating the Scriptures by heart. This must have taken 
place after the time of which he was writing in the 
context, and probably in Egypt. 

The simplest explanation of the presence of these two 
sections in the shorter recension only is based on the 
hypothesis that they contain information which Eusebius 
had not acquired when the longer recension was written. 

Schwartz holds a view of the relation between the two 
recensions of the Martyrs directly opposed to that of 
Light foot. But the reasons which he gives for his opinion 
do not appear sufficient to establish it. He maintains 
that the priority of the shorter recension is clearly proved 
by a comparison of the two in a single passage. At the 
end of the sentence in which it is stated that the bodies of 
Pamphilus and his companions were by the providence of 
God preserved from injury and were buried in a fitting 
manner, the longer recension adds that they were deposited 


in shrines and placed in churches. 1 On which Dr. Schwartz 
remarks that when the first edition was written imme 
diately (as he thinks) after the fall of Maximin it would 
have been impossible to build a martyrium. But nothing 
is said about building a martyrium. It is only implied 
that some churches in the neighbourhood of Caesarea 
were still standing which is quite credible 2 and that 
the bodies, after having been exposed for some days, were 
buried in them. This might certainly have been done, if 
not at once, yet within a very short time, since within 
less than three weeks the last Caesarean martyr was put 
to death, and there presently came a lull in the persecution 
throughout the whole of Palestine, which lasted for some 
months, and during which even churches were built. 3 
Moreover, the detail about the depositing of the bodies in 
churches was just such a feature of the story as, though 
of much interest for Palestinian churchmen, might well 
be omitted in abridging the tract for the benefit of a 
wider circle of readers. 

I confess that I am at a loss to understand an argument 
by which Schwartz seeks to support his inference from 
the passage just considered, and to prove that the longer 
recension dates from 323 at the earliest. 4 I conclude, 
therefore, that on the whole probability is in favour of 
the hypothesis that the shorter recension was abridged 
from the longer. 

1 M. P. (Grk.) 11. 28 ; Cureton, p. 45. For the text see above, p. 200 n. 

2 See Optat. i. 14; Gesta Purg. Felicis (Gebhardt, Act. Mart. Sel. 205) ; 
Pass. S. Theodoti, 15 f. ; Pass. S. Philippi ep. Heracl. 3-5 (Ruinart, 
pp. 342 f., 410 f.) all referred to in Mason, Persec. of DiocL, pp. 153, 
160 f., 176, 179, 362-364. 

3 M. P. (Grk.) 11.30; 13. 1. 

4 p. Ixi : . . . verrat die Art wie von Licinius gesprochen wird [p. )L> : 
)JL^) ^Jiw Joo ,VA < \A f Qot bs eVi ra)V Kaipwv TTJV fj-ovarlav et^ei/] die Zeit 
nach 323. But surely it is Maximin, not Licinius, who is here spoken 
of, and neither from the Syriac nor from Schwartz s restoration of the 


The shorter recension was regarded by both Lightfoot 
and Westcott 1 as a portion of a larger work. What 
then was the work of which it is to be regarded as a 
fragment? Westcott identified it with that in which 
Eusebius included the records of ancient martyrdoms, 
reaching back as far as the reign of Marcus Aurelius . 
This theory is not mentioned by Lightfoot, and in truth 
it is untenable. For the references to the Collection of 
Ancient Martyrdoms of Eusebius found in his Ecclesi 
astical History 2 clearly prove that it was already compiled 
when the fourth and fifth books of the History were 
written, that it referred exclusively to the early martyrs, 
and that it was not a composition of Eusebius but a 
collection of documents, some of them, at any rate, con 
temporary with the events which they described. 

But Lightfoot s own account of the matter is not much 
more satisfactory. The Greek recension, he says, was 
part of a larger work, in which the sufferings of the 
martyrs were set off against the deaths of the persecutors. 
And he proceeds to argue that the Appendix to the 
eighth book of the History, which contrasts the miserable 
deaths of the persecutors with the happy end of Con- 
stantius the friend of the Christians, crowned by the 
happy accession of his son Constantine , is another frag 
ment of the same work. 

It is plain that when the earlier recension of the 
Martyrs was composed Eusebius had a treatise de morti- 
bus persecutorum in contemplation. And though his first 
design was merely to relate the deaths of some subordi 
nate officials, the plan was afterwards enlarged so as to 

Greek can it be inferred that he was not alive and in power when the 
sentence was penned. 

1 The Two Empires, p. 4 f. It would seem that when Westcott s Essay 
on Eusebius was written the Syriac version had not been discovered. 

2 iv. 15.47; v. Pref. 2; 4. 3; 21. 5. 


include at least the Emperor Maximin. If this design 
was accomplished the Appendix to Book viii may well be 
a fragment of the projected work. But if so, it is not likely 
that the Greek Martyrs of Palestine also belonged to it. 
For it is one thing to contrast the happy end of Emperors 
who favoured the Christians with the miserable deaths of 
those who persecuted them, and another to set off the 
sufferings of the martyrs against those of their enemies. 
Moreover, the passage in which he mentions it remains, 
with but slight alteration, in the shorter recension. The 
language there used does not suggest that he is referring 
to a second part of the work of which the Martyrs formed 
the first. And indeed Lightfoot regards the Syriac 
recension as a tract complete in itself. Further, I can 
find nothing in the Greek Martyrs any more than in the 
Syriac to suggest such a motive as Lightfoot conceived to 
have been that of the entire work. 

I venture to suggest another hypothesis. It is perhaps 
worth considering whether the larger work may not be 
the Ecclesiastical History itself. 

The eighth book of the History is confessedly not an 
exhaustive account of the persecution. In it Eusebius 
designedly omits many facts of which he had first-hand 
knowledge, and he refers his readers for them to a forth 
coming work which is certainly the Martyrs of Palestine. 1 
The omissions in the eighth book are in fact much more 
serious than this reference would lead us to expect. They 
concern not only the conflicts of individual martyrs in 
one district, but leading incidents of the persecution as a 
whole. It is impossible, even with the eighth book in its 
present form, to gather from the History anything like an 
intelligible and consecutive account of the development 

1 H. E. viii. 13. 7. The sentence in H. E. viii is almost quoted 
in the Syriac recension, Cureton, p. 3. 


of the persecution up to the palinode. Of incidents in 
the dominions of Maximin we are given a good many, 
but he is mentioned by name only in one chapter, and in 
a single sentence elsewhere. 1 Of his career as a per 
secutor we are told only what may be gathered from a 
single sentence. And in it stress is mainly laid on his 
erection of a pagan hierarchy, which belongs to the 
period following the Edict of Toleration. 2 In its earlier 
form the book must have been still more unsatisfactory. 
The Martyrs of Palestine is now, and always was, an 
indispensable ancillary to the Ecclesiastical History. 

Moreover, it was written, at least in its Greek form, 
after the eighth book of the History. In proof of this 
statement it is only necessary to quote a passage to which 
reference has been already made : c [the conflicts] at which 
I myself was present, these I shall make known to those 
that shall come after us in another book (ypa^fjy). 3 

But it would seem to have followed it after no great 
interval. The text of the palinode with which it once 
closed was introduced with words that still remain, in 
part transcribed from the eighth book of the History, 
which plainly imply that the edict ended the persecution 
not only in Palestine but throughout the Empire. Such 
a sentence could not have been written by a Christian 
subject of Maximin after the year 3 II. 4 

The reasonable conclusion from these facts seems to be 
that the De Martyribus was actually written as a supple 
ment to the eighth book. It was in fact part of the 
History in one of its forms. 

We find some corroboration of this from other con 
siderations. Lightfoot uses two arguments to prove that 
the Greek recension is a fragment. The first is drawn 

1 H. E. viii. 13. 15 ; 14. 7 ff. 2 Ibid. 14. 9. 

3 Ibid. 13. 7. * Compare also 12 ad fin. 


from the twelfth chapter. There Eusebius enumerates 
certain things which he omits as unedifying. These 
things, he remarks, he passes over as it was said by me 
when I was beginning . No such statement appears 
elsewhere in the book. From this Lightfoot infers that 
the Preface is lost. But a closely similar remark is found 
in the introductory portion of the eighth Book, 1 and to 
it no doubt Eusebius here refers. 

Lightfoot s second argument is based on the omission 
of the text of the edict of Galerius at the end of the book. 
That can easily be explained on our hypothesis. The 
edict was already copied at the end of Book viii. It was 
an obvious saving of trouble if a scribe on coming to it 
a second time in the same manuscript contented himself 
with inserting in place of it a cross-reference in his margin. 

But the Greek recension of the Martyrs is connected 
with the eighth book of the History in another way. It 
differs from the Syriac for the most part by omissions. 
The narratives of the martyrdoms are abbreviated, and 
the hortatory introduction and conclusion are removed. 
There are, however, besides the notices of Ulpian and John, 
already considered, four considerable passages in the Greek 
to which there is nothing corresponding in the Syriac. 
The first of these is the Preface, which gives an account of 
the first two edicts. This is copied from H. E. viii. 2. 4 f., 
with some alterations, most of which are purely verbal 
and wholly unimportant. The more significant are made 
in order to adapt the passage to the circumstances of Pales 
tine. They are the change of the date of the first edict from 
March, and before Easter, to April, and at Easter, 2 the 
insertion of the name of Flavian, the praeses of Palestine, 
and the omission of the word /3acnAi/ca before y/oa^ara, 
indicating, no doubt, that the document referred to was 

1 H. E. viii. 2. 2 f. 2 eoprqr 


not the imperial edict itself, but the letter founded on 
it by the praeses. 

The second is a passage of some length in chapter 1, 
which is a reproduction of H. E. viii. 3. 1 Here again 
are some changes, including both omissions and inser 
tions. Where they are not trivial they are obviously 
intended to adapt the passage to its new environment. 
In Book viii the occurrences are described in general 
terms as an illustration of the results of the second edict. 
In the Martyrs the scene is laid at Caesarea, and most of 
the other larger changes seem to result from this one. 2 

The third is chapter 12, concerning certain things 
which Eusebius omits from his narrative. It is an expan 
sion of H. E. viii. 2. 1-3, without much verbal resemblance, 
and, as we have seen, reference seems to be made in it to 
that passage. 

The last is the closing paragraph of the book. 3 It 
takes a rapid survey of the course of the persecution 
outside Palestine, and originally ended with the text of the 
palinode, which has disappeared from this place. The 
palinode still remains at the end of Book viii, and the 
sentence which here leads up to it is copied from H. E. 
viii. 16. I. 4 The preceding sentences, with additional 
matter, contain reminiscences of H. E. viii. 6. 10 ; 13. 10 f. 

1 M. P. (Grk.) 1. 3-5 a. 

2 In one case a change seems to have been the result of careless 
copying. In H. E. viii. 3. 2 f. we have aXXos rjp.idvf)s nlpo/jLevos as av 

tjY) veKpos fppiiiTfTO, [xai TIS av na\iv eV fddfpovs Kei/j.vos p.aKpav eavpfTO 
roiv nodolv,] ev TtQvKoaiv avrols XeXo-yia^ieVos 1 . In M. P. (Grk.) 1. 4. the 
words Kai dviero ye T&V dccrp,>v are quite suitably added after e ppiVrcTo, 
but the bracketed words are omitted. Thus two persons became one, 
and the sentence not very intelligible. 

8 M. P. (Grk.) 13. 11-14 

4 The intervening portion of Book viii the remainder of chapter 16 
and the first section of chapter 17 is omitted. It is chiefly concerned 
with the illness and death of Galerius. These would naturally be passed 
over, as irrelevant to the subject of the De Martyribus. 


Thus four passages were introduced into the Martyrs of 
Palestine when that work was recast : two of them wholly, 
and one partly, transcribed from the eighth book, while 
the other is expanded from, and refers to, a passage in it. 
It is interesting to compare with this the way in which 
Eusebius sometimes connects a book of his History with 
the one that immediately precedes it. Thus the last 
sentence of Book ii is repeated as the first of Book iii. 
In like manner the last sentence of Book iv is identical 
with the earlier part of the first sentence of Book v. The 
sixth book closes and the seventh opens with a reference 
to the epistles which Dionysius of Alexandria has left ; 
and the Preface of Book viii is an abridgement of the last 
paragraph of Book vii. 1 So in the Martyrs of Palestine, 
which covers exactly the same period as the eighth Book 
of the History, Eusebius, as though desiring to connect it 
with that book, commences by extracting from it, with 
suitable modification, the first sentence of its direct 
narrative, and ends with a passage consisting of two 
extracts from its final chapters. 

Finally the manuscripts give some support to the theory 
that the shorter recension of the De Martyribus was 
intended by its author to serve as a supplement to the 
eighth book of the History, and to follow it. The text is 
preserved in four primary manuscripts only, those which 
Schwartz designates as A T E E. In all of them it has 
a heading to the effect that it was found in a certain copy 
(R has certain copies ) in the eighth book. This state 
ment must therefore have come from the common ancestor 
of A T E E. We may infer that the De Martyribus was 
not in the codex from which the greater part of the text 
of the History in that ancient copy was taken, and that 

1 Other examples are given by S. Lee in his English translation of 
the Theophania, p. vi. See also above, p. 257. 

1353 U 


in the only manuscript of it which the scribe knew it 
followed the eighth book of the History. That was a 
position in which it was most unlikely to be placed by 
later scribes or editors. In fact it was felt to be so 
unsuitable that, in spite of its heading, the tract has been 
removed to the end of the tenth book in T E. How, then, 
did it originally find its way to the close of Book viii ? 
Not the only possible, but certainly the most obvious, 
answer to that question is that it was put there by 
Eusebius himself before the ninth book was added. 

It remains to be said that on the theory which is here 
maintained one clause which is attested by all the manu 
scripts cannot belong to the original text. It is that 
already referred to in which Eusebius announces his 
intention of describing in the future the deaths of the 
persecutors, both of Maximin himself and of those who 
acted with him. l The last words must have been inserted 
after Maximin s death, and probably when the ninth book 
was added. 

To sum up. I conceive that the history of the com 
position of the Ecclesiastical History was this. Eusebius 
had probably nearly completed the seven books of the 
History which brought the narrative down to bis own time, 
when suddenly the Edict of Toleration was issued by 
Galerius and his colleagues. This event, which appeared 
to have ushered in a period of peace to the Church, after 
the most cruel of the persecutions, was seized upon by him 
as the natural terminus of his story. He therefore wrote 
a sketch of the history of the persecution as the eighth 
and last book of his great work, and published the whole. 
Immediately after, or perhaps before this, he wrote the 
longer edition of his Martyrs of Palestine. Somewhat 
later he abridged this work and added a few paragraphs 
1 M. P. (Grk.) 7. 8. 


to it that it might serve as a supplement to the somewhat 
meagre record of his eighth book. No doubt it was 
inserted at the end of the History in the copies subse 
quently made. All these works were completed between 
May and November 311. The eighth book of the History, 
with the addition of the Martyrs, we may count as a second 

But the dream that a permanent peace had been 
inaugurated for the Church was rudely dispelled, as far 
as the East was concerned, by the resumption of the 
persecution by Maximin in the last months of the same 
year. Once again the final peace seemed to have begun 
with the edict of Constantine and Licinius at Milan. No 
sooner had it been proclaimed at Nicomedia than Eusebius 
began his preparations for a third edition of the History. 
He revised Book viii, and to a small extent also Book vii 
and the Martyrs, and wrote Book ix, bringing it to an end 
with the text of the letter of Licinius of June 13, 313. It 
may be dated about the end of 313. 

Some eleven years later, after a temporary interruption 
of the peace by Licinius, a fourth edition was issued. The 
text of the ninth book was slightly altered and the tenth 
was added, the whole work in its present form being 
finished in 324, or early in 325. Whether the De 
Martyribus was included in this final edition I do not 
venture an opinion. 

u 2 


Genesis ii. 21 : 118. 
Isaiah xxxiii. 15, 16: 8. 
Matthew xiii. 16: 90. 

xxiii. 34: 131. 

xxviii. 19: 33. 
1 Corinthians ii. 9 : 90. 
Hebrews v. 7 : 15. 

Ada Anthimi : 270. 

Acta lustini : 168. 

Ada Phileae et Philoromi : 272. 

Africanus, ap. Eus. H. E. i. 7. 12 : 


Anonymus, Adversus Montanistas, 
ap. Eus. H.E. v. 16.3: 118. 

v. 16. 7, 8: 119. 

v. 16. 7: 117. 

v. 16. 9: 117,119. 

v. 16. 12: 131. 

v. 16. 14: 113,124. 

v. 16. 19, 20, 21 : 132. 

v. 17. 2: 119. 

v. 17. 3, 4: 118. 

v. 17.4: 16. 

Apollonius, Adversus Montanistas, 
ap. Eus. H. E. v. 18. 2 : 120, 
124, 127. 

v. 18. 3: 113,128. 

v. 18. 4: 113,124. 

v. 18. 5 : 113, 124, 133. 

v. 18. 6-9: 123. 

v. 18. 6: 113. 

v. 18. 7: 113,124. 

v. 18. 10: 113. 

v. 18. 11: 124. 

v. 18. 12: 122. 

v. 18. 13: 120. 
Anthimus, Epistola, ap. Chron. 

Pasch.: 270. 

Aurelius Victor, De Caesaribus, 
39. 48 : 204. 

Cedrenus, Compendium, p. 257 f. : 


Chronicon Paschale : 73. 
Cicero, Epistola ad Atticam, viii. 

14. 1, 2 : 235. 
Clemens Alexandrinus, Hypo- 

typoses, ap. Eus. H. E. ii. 1. 2, 

3: 17. 
Stromata, i. 11 (ap. H.E. v. 11. 

3-5): 20. 
Clemens Romanus. Epistola, 54 : 

Codex lustinianeus, 3. 28. 26: 


11. 58. 1 : 219. 
Codex Theodosianus, 13. 10. 2 : 

Constantinus, Oratio, 25 : 204, 


Cyprianus, Epistolae, 55. 6 : 175. 
71 : 176. 

Didymus Alexandrinus, De Trini- 

tate, iii. 41: 110. 
Dionysius Alexandrinus, Epistolae, 

ap. Eus. H. E. iii. 28. 4, 5 : 


vi. 40: 169. 
vii. 5. 6 : 160. 
vii. 11. 2: 164. 
vii. 11.8: If 4. 
vii. 11. 18, 19 : 164 f. 
vii. 11. 18: 174. 
vii. 11.20-5: 164, 169. 
vii. 11. 23: 173. 
vii. 11. 24: 170. 
vii. 21.3: 172. 
vii. 21.4, 6: 171. 
vii. 22. 4-6: 173. 
vii. 23. 1-3: 170. 
vii. 23. 4: 163. 
vii. 25. 1-5 : 20. 



Dionysius Corinth iorum Epi- 
scopus, Epistolae, ap. Eus. 
H. E.iv. 23. 3, 9: 177. 
iv. 23. 12 : 244. 

Epiphanius, De Mensuris et Pon- 

deribus, 15. 1-5 : 28-34, 101 f. 
Epiphanius, Panarion, xxiv. 1 : 

xxvii. 5, 6: 73-5, 76, 77-84, 

106 f. 

xxvii. 6 : 9, 73, 76, 105, 106 f. 
xxix. 4: 10, 14, 15,82,98, 99. 
xxix. 7 : 28-34, 73, 101 f. 
xxx. 2 : 28-34, 73, 101 f. 
xlviii. 2: 127. 
xlviii. 3, 4: 118. 
xlviii. 4: 119. 
xlviii. 8,9: 127. 
xlviii. 8 : 129. 
xlviii. 11: 111, 127. 
xlviii. 14: 120. 
xlix: 113. 
xlix. 1 : 120, 122. 
xlix. 2, 3 : 120. 
Ixviii. 1 : 273. 
Ixxviii. 7: 5 f., 11 f., 14, 16, 

35, 82, 98, 102. 
Ixxviii. 8 : 12, 98. 
Ixxviii. 13: 13, 98,99. 
Ixxviii. 14: 6, 7, 13, 15, 99, 

100 f. 
Epiphanius Monachus, De Vita 

B. Mariae, 14 : 44 f. 
Eusebius, Chronica : 24, 43, 151, 

160, 170, 177, 181, 186, 187, 

237, 244. 
Eusebius, De Martyribus Palesti- 

He,Pref.: 180,181,186,188, 

Cureton p. 3 : 57, 285. 

1. 1, Curetonp. 4: 192,200. 

1.2, Cureton p. 4: 192. 

1. 3-5a, Cureton p. 4: 200, 


1.3: 186. 
1.4: 288. 

1. 5, Cureton p. 6 189, 192. 

2. 1, Cureton p. 6 189, 192. 

2. 4, Cureton p. 8 192. 

3. 1, Cureton p. 8 : 196, 202. 
3. 3, 4, Cureton p. 10 : 195. 
Cureton p. 12 : 187. 

3. 4, Cureton p. 12 : 202. 

Eusebius, De Martyrllus Palesti- 
nae, 3. 5-4. 15, Cureton p. 12 : 
4. 8, Cureton p. 13 : 205, 210. 

4. 15 : 190. 

5, Cureton p. 17 : 186. 

5. 1 : 281 f. 
Cureton p. 17 : 190. 
Cureton p. 19 : 206. 

6, Curetonp. 19: 196, 206. 
6. 1, Cureton p. 19: 191. 

6. 5 : 57. 

7. 1, Cureton p. 22: 193, 

7. 3, 4, Cureton p. 24 : 189. 
7. 3, Cureton p. 24 : 196, 273. 
7. 4-7, Cureton p. 24 : 196. 
7. 5, 6, Cureton p. 25 : 199. 
7. 6, Cureton p. 25 : 195. 

7. 8, Cureton p. 26 : 280, 290. 

8. 1, Cureton p. 26 : 183, 196. 
8. 4-13, Cureton p. 26 : 206. 
8. 10, 11, Cureton p. 30: 57. 

8. 12, Cureton p. 31 : 184. 

9. 1, Cureton p. 31: 207. 

9. 2, Cureton p. 31 : 208, 230. 

9. 5, Cureton p. 32 : 207. 
Cureton p. 34 f. : 183. 

10. 1, Cureton p. 34: 184. 

10. 2, Cureton p. 35 : 189. 

11, Curetonp. 36: 194,273. 
11. 1, Cureton p. 38: 57. 

11. 5, Cureton p. 40 : 195, 196, 

199, 210. 

11. 24, Cureton p. 44: 57. 
11. 28, Cureton, p. 45: 200, 

11. 30, Cureton, p. 45: 209, 


11. 31 : 278. 
12 : 286 f., 288. 
13. 1-3, Cureton p. 46 : 183. 
13. 1 : 183, 195, 210, 283. 
13. 3, Cureton p. 46 : 273. 
13.4, 5, Curetonp. 47: 273. 
Cureton p. 48 : 283. 
13. 5, Cureton p. 48 : 209. 
13.6-8: 281 f. 
13. 8 : 198. 
13.11-14: 288. 
13.12: 197. 
13-14: 265. 
Eusebius, Demonstratio Evan- 

gelica, iii. 5 : 7, 92. 



Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, 
i. 1. 1, 2: 258. 

.1.1: 81. 

. 1. 3 : 4. 

.9.1,2: 198. 
1.9.1: 17. 

. 9. 2, 3 : 267. 

.12.1,3: 36. 

. 13. 11 : 152. 
ii. 1. 13: 22. 
ii. 2. 2 : 36. 
ii. 16. 1 : 36. 
ii. 17. 1 : 33. 
ii. 18: 138-145. 
ii. 22. 2 : 22. 
ii. 23. 1 : 17. 
ii. 23. 2: 24. 
ii. 23. 3: 2,11. 
ii. 23. 4-18: 4-17,27,96. 
ii. 23. 4-7 : 7 f. 
ii. 23. 4, 5 : 98. 
ii. 23. 4: 15,17. 
ii. 23.5: 10,12. 
ii. 23. 6 : 99. 
ii. 23. 7-18 : 100 f. 
ii. 23. 7: 6. 
ii. 23. 8: 10,58,91. 
ii. 23. 9: 25. 
ii. 23. 10, 11, 16 : 57. 
ii. 23. 18 : 24, 32. 
ii. 26. 2 : 289. 
iii. 1. 1 : 289. 
iii. 5-10: 27,50. 
iii. 5. 2, 3 : 29-34, 101 f. 
iii. 11-20: 50 ff. 
iii. 11, 12: 21,23. 
iii. 11: 11,24-6, 27, 32, 35 f., 

57, 80, 93, 102. 
iii. 12: 26,52,59-62, 103. 
iii. 13, 15 : 82. 
iii. 16 : 65, 105. 
iii. 17-20: 41-9,50-3. 
iii. 17: 52,61, 103. 
iii. 18. 1 : 80, 95, 104. 
iii. 18. 2-4 : 43 f. 
iii. 19 : 24, 44, 58, 104. 
iii. 20: 11,54. 
iii. 20. 1, 2 : 96, 104. 
iii. 20. 1 : 44, 80, 104. 
iii. 20. 3-5 : 104 f. 
iii. 20. 6 : 105. 
iii. 20. 9 : 95, 104. 
iii. 23. 3: 10,11. 
iii. 23. 8: 10. 

Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, 

iii. 24. 2: 148. 
iii. 24. 5, 7, 11: 22,36. 
iii. 32. 1, 2 : 24, 52. 
iii. 32. 1 : 22, 33. 
iii. 32. 2 : 40, 57, 58, 103, 105. 
iii. 32. 3, 4 : 56. 
iii. 32. 3 : 40, 59, 103. 
iii. 32. 4 : 54, 105. 
iii. 32. 6: 54,55,59,96,105. 
iii. 32. 7, 8 : 37-9. 
iii. 32. 7 : 86, 102. 
iii. 36. 3: 22. 
iii. 37. 1 : 22. 
iii. 38. 1 : 148. 
iv. 5 : 64, 92 f. 
iv. 5. 1, 2 : 22. 
iv. 6. 3, 4 : 64. 
iv. 7 f. : 76. 
iv. 7. 9 : 76. 
iv. 7. 15 ; 8. 1 : 2, 62. 
iv. 8. 2 : 2, 3, 10, 68, 90, 98. 
iv. 8. 5 : 147. 
iv. 10: 169. 

iv. 11-13, 16-18: 145-7. 
iv. 11. 7-9: 145. 
iv. 11. 7 : 68, 71, 72, 75, 89, 


iv. 11. 11: 73. 
iv. 12 : 169. 
iv. 13. 6: 169. 
iv. 14. 10: 17,137. 
iv. 15: 55, 136 f. 
iv. 15. 11, 12 : 57. 
iv. 15. 46-8: 137. 
iv. 15. 47 : 137, 284. 
iv. 16 : 22. 
iv. 16. 2 : 147. 
iv. 17. 1 : 147. 
iv. 22. 1 : 3, 10, 66, 105, 106, 


iv. 22. 2, 3 : 96. 
iv. 22. 2 : 66, 72, 105, 106. 
iv. 22. 3 : 66, 70, 75, 76, 106, 


iv. 22. 4-6 : 39, 96, 103. 
iv. 22. 4, 5 : 77. 
iv. 22. 4: 11,18-20,25,27,57, 

61, 102. 

iv. 22. 5, 6 : 38. 
iv. 22. 5 : 58, 62, 76. 
iv. 22. 7 : 58, 91, 98. 
iv. 22. 8 : 8, 35, 96. 
iv. 23 : 147 f. 



Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, 

iv. 26 : 148 f. 
iv. 26. 2: 176. 
iv. 27 : 149-151. 
iv. 28 : 22. 
iv. 30. 3 : 289. 
v. Pref. 1 : 289. 
v. Pref. 2 : 284. 
v. 3. 4: 132,151. 
v. 4, 5 : 95. 
v. 4. 3: 284. 
v. 5. 1, 2 : 22. 
v. 5. 4: 151. 
v. 5. 9 : 86. 
v. 10. 1 : 22. 
v. 12 : 64. 
v. 12. 2 : 87, 92. 
v. 19. 1 : 22. 
v. 20: 177. 
v. 22 : 198. 
v. 28. 8-12 : 125. 
vi. 2. 1 : 36. 
vi. 4. 3: 22. 
vi. 19. 16: 73. 
vi. 20. 1 : 136. 
vi. 22: 151 f. 
vi. 26 : 198. 
vi. 32. 3 : 136. 
vi. 33. 4: 36. 
vi. 36. 3 : 136. 
vi. 43 : 152 f. 
vi. 43. 2, 3 : 175. 
vi. 44-6 : 154-8. 
vi. 46. 5 : 289. 
vii. Pref. : 289. 
vii. 1 : 163. 
vii. 2-9: 159f. 
vii. 2 : 160. 
vii. 5. 3 : 160. 
vii. 9. 6 : 176. 
vii. 10, 11 : 163, 165. 
vii. 12 : 36. 
vii. 17 : 36. 
vii. 19 : 17. 
vii. 20-23 : 160-5. 
vii. 26 : 165 f. 
vii. 32. 28 : 198. 
vii. 32. 31 : 267. 
vii. 32. 32 : 259, 261, 289. 
viii. Pref.: 259,261, 289. 
viii. 2. 1-3 : 288. 
viii. 2. 2, 3 : 287. 
viii. 2. 4, 5: 287. 
viii. 2. 4: 181, 188. 

Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 

viii. 3 : 288. 
viii. 3. 2, 3 : 288. 
viii. 4. 2 : 253. 
viii. 6. 6 : 268-70. 
viii. 6. 7 : 230. 
viii. 6. 10 : 200, 288. 
viii. 9. 1-5 : 270-3. 
viii. 9. 4: 271. 
viii. 7. 1-13. 7 : 270. 
viii. 13. 1-7 : 273 f. 
viii. 13. 1, 2 : 269. 
viii. 13. 1 : 239, 274. 
viii. 13. 2 : 218. 
viii. 13. 5 : 183. 
viii. 13. 7, 8 : 262 f. 
viii. 13. 7 : 274, 285, 286. 
viii. 13. 8: 259. 
viii. 13. 10, 11 : 197, 288. 
viii. 13. 10 : 187. 
viii. 13. 11: 204. 
viii. 13. 15 : 275, 286. 
viii. 14. 7-16 a: 276, 286. 
viii. 14. 9 : 206, 209, 286. 
viii. 14. 16b,18: 276. 
viii. 15 : 276. 

viii. 16. 1 : 259, 264, 276, 288. 
viii. 16. 2-17. 1 : 288. 
viii. 16. 2 : 264. 
viii. 16. 2, 3 : 253. 
viii. 16. 7 : 254. 
viii. 17 : 209. 
viii. 17. 3: 278. 
viii. 17. 5 : 246. 
viii. 17. 11: 266,278. 
viii. App. : 253, 265 f., 284 f. 
viii. App. 2 : 187. 
ix. 1 : 260. 
ix. 1. 1 : 213, 214. 
ix. 1. 3-6 : 214, 254. 
ix. 1. 5 : 232. 
ix. 1. 7-11 : 187, 214. 
ix. 1. 7 : 233. 
ix. 2-4 : 206, 216. 
ix. 2: 217,229,230,231. 
ix. 2. 1 : 187, 214. 
ix. 3 : 229, 231. 
ix. 4 : 230. 
ix. 4. 1 : 229. 
ix. 4. 2 : 209, 216, 223. 
ix. 4. 3: 231. 
ix. 5 : 230, 231. 
ix. 5. 1 : 267. 
ix. 6: 231,269,274. 



Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, 

ix. 6. 2 : 267, 274. 

ix. 6. 3: 218,239. 

ix. 6. 4 : 264. 

ix. 7. 1: 223,231. 

ix. 7. 2 : 223. 

ix. 7. 4: 231. 

ix. 7. 7 : 209, 231. 

ix. 7. 10 : 223. 

ix. 7. 12 : 209, 229, 231. 

ix. 7. 13, 14: 223,231. 

ix. 7. 15: 231. 

ix. 7. 16 : 223, 224, 228. 

ix. 8 : 224, 276. 

ix. 8. 1 : 224. 

ix. 9. 1 : 245, 246, 256. 

ix. 9. 12, 13 : 218. 

ix. 9. 12: 245,247,252,256. 

ix. 9. 14-22 : 232-4. 

ix. 9. 15-17 : 187. 

ix. 9. 17: 217,229. 

ix. 9. 19 : 231. 

ix. 9. 23, 24 : 233. 

ix. 9. 25 : 247. 

ix. 10 : 189. 

ix. 10. 3: 247,256. 

ix. 10. 7 : 224. 

ix. 10. 8, 9 : 227. 

ix. 10. 8 : 198. 

ix. 10. 12 : 197, 223, 228. 

ix. 10. 13: 226. 

ix. 10. 14, 15 : 253. 

ix. 10. 14 : 225. 

ix. 11. 4: 272. 

ix. 11. 8: 250 f., 253, 257. 

x. 1. 1 : 250, 253, 257. 

x.l. 2: 243,261. 

x.l. 3: 262. 

x. 2. 2: 245,249,251. 

x. 4. 16, 60: 245,255. 

x. 5-7 : 248 f., 251. 

x. 5. 4 : 218. 

x. 5. 14: 251. 

x. 8. 1 : 254. 

x. 8. 3, 5-18 : 255. 

x. 9. 9 : 253. 

x. 16, 17: 249. 
Eusebius, Theophania, ii. 97: 278. 

v. 45 : 92. 

Eusebius, Vita Constantini, i. 18 : 

i. 23 : 253. 

Eutropius, Breviarium Historiae 
Itomanae, ix. 27 : 204. 

Firmilianus, Epistola, ap. Cvpr. 
Ep. 75. 10: 113, 119. 

Gesta Purgationis Felicis: 283. 
Hegesippus, Hypomnemata: 98- 

See also the references there 

given to Epiphanius, Eusebius, 

Irenaeus and Photius. 
Hieronymus, De Viris lllustribus. 

22: 1. 

40 : 126. 

66: 152-4. 

69: 156,157,158. 

80 : 237. 

Hippolytus, Eefutationes, v. 24. 
27: 90. 

viii. 19: 112. 

Irenaeus, Ad Florimim, ap. H. E. 

v. 20. 5 : 95. 
Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses. i. 25. 

6: 75, 86, 106 f. 
i. 27. 1 (ap. H.E. iv. 11. 2): 

85, 87. J 

ii. 22. 5 (ap. H. E. iii. 23. 3) : 


iii. 1. 1 (ap. H.E. v.8. 2): 22. 
iii. 3. 3 (ap. H. E. v. 6) : 15,81. 
iii. 3. 4 (ap. H. E. iv. 14. 3-8) : 

86, 137. 

iii. 4. 3 (ap. H. E. iv. 11. 2)- 

85, 86. 

iii. 12. 8 : 22. 
Irenaeus, De Ogdoade, ap. H. E. 

v. 20. 2 : 147, 177, 244. 

Josephus, Antiquitates, xviii. 2. 2 : 

4. 2 : 198. 
xx. 9. 1 (ap.#. E. ii. 23. 21-4) : 

Josephus, De Bello ludaico, ii. 15. 

2: 24. 
Julius Caesar, De Bello CivilL iii. 

76: 235. 
Julius Caesar, De Bello Gallico, v. 

47. 1 : 235. 
vii. 10, 11 : 236. 
vii. 40, 41 : 235. 
Justinus, Dialogus, 80 : 121. 

Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecu- 

torum, x-xx : 239. 
x : 253. 



Lactan tius, De Mortibus Persecu- 
torum, xi. 8 : 203. 

xii-xiv : 185. 

xii, xiii : 181. 

xii: 188. 

xv : 269. 

xvii : 185, 192, 201. 

xvii. 1, 2 : 240. 

xviii. 1-7: 204. 

xviii. 8-15 : 205, 240. 

xviii. 15 : 204. 

xix : 185. 

xix. 3 : 204. 

xx. 1 : 240. 

xx. 4: 203. 

xxi-xxiii : 240. 

xxiv : 238. 

xxvi-xxx : 240. 

xxxiii-xxxv : 241. 

xxxv : 209. 

xxxv. 1 : 213. 

xxxv. 3 : 215. 

xxxv. 4: 221,238. 

xxxvi: 215. 

xxxvi. 1 : 216, 221. 

xxxvi. 3-7 : 231. 

xxxvi. 3: 216,231,259. 

xxxvi. 4: 209,231. 

xxxvi. 6, 7 : 214, 239. 

xxxvi. 6 : 187. 

xxxvii. 1 : 239. 

xlii : 275. 

xliii, xliv : 240. 

xliii: 276. 

xliii. 1 : 265. 

xliv. 4: 218. 

xlv-xlvii : 241. 

xlv. 1 : 218, 241. 

xlv. 2 : 219, 220. 

xlv. 5, 6: 219. 

xlv. 5 : 222. 

xlv. 6: 212. 

xlvi. 8, 9 : 219. 

xlvii-xlix : 224. 

xlvii. 6 : 225. 

xlviii: 256. 

xlviii. 1 : 238. 

xlviii. 2 : 218. 

xlviii. 13 : 238. 

Lucianus, Apologia, ap. Rufin. H. 
E. ix. 6 : 218. 

Optatus, De Schismate Donati- 
starum, i. 14 : 283. 

Origenes, ap. Eus. H. E. vi. 25. 4: 

Panegyrici Veteres, vi. 9 : 203, 


vii. 15 : 203. 
x. 33: 218. 
Papias, Expositiones, ap. Eus. H. 

E. iii. 39. 16 : 22. 
Passio Achatii : 133 f. 
Passio S. Philippi Episcopi Hera- 

cleae, 3-5 : 283. 
Passio S. Polycarpi, 6, 7 : 57. 
Passio S. Theodoti, 15, 16 : 283. 
Photius, BiUiotheca, 48 : 144. 
121 : 152. 
232 : 3, 90, 107. 
Pseudo-Clemens, Recognitions, i. 

43: 18. 

Pseudo-Tertullianus, Adversus 
Haereticos, 1 : 112. 

Rufinus, Historia Ecclesiastica, ii. 

23. 3 : 2. 
ii. 23. 8 : 91. 
iii. 16 : 52 f. 

Socrates, Historia Ecclesiastica, iv. 

28: 126. 
Sozomenus, Historia Ecclesiastica, 

ii. 32 : 134. 
vii. 19 : 130. 

Tertullianus, Adversus Marcionem, 

iii. 24: 120. 
Adversus Praxean, 1 : 133. 

2,8,13: 111. 

30: 112. 

Apologeticus, 5 : 4. 
DeAnima, 9: 114, 115, 118. 

11,21,45: 118. 

55: 114,130. 
De Corona Militis, 1 : 130. 
De Exhortatione Castitatis, 10 : 

De Fuga in Persecutione, 9, 1 1 : 


De Idololatria, 15 : 114. 
De leiuniis, 1 : 112. 

2: 129. 

3,12: 118. 

13: 129. 
De Monogamia, 2 : 112. 

3: 118,127. 



Tertullianus, De Pudicitia, 19, 21, 

22 : 123. 
De Eesurrectione Carnis, 63 : 


De Spectaculis, 26 : 114. 
De Virginibus Velandis, 1 : 118. 

9: 120. 

17 : 114. 

Vegetius, Rei Militaris Instituta, i. 
9 : 235. 

Zonaras, Annales, xii. 21 : 175. 

xii. 33 : 266. 
Zosimus, Historia, ii. 7 : 202, 276. 


Abdication of Emperors, 185 f., 

195, 197, 239 f. 
date of, 185-8. 
Achatius, bishop, 133. 
Aedesius, martyr, 282. 
Aegaeae, 213. 
Aemilianus, 174. 
Agabus, 118. 

Agapius, martyr, 191, 196, 206. 
Agathonice, Acts of, 136 f., 167. 
Agedincum, 236. 
Ainsworth, W., 220. 
Albinus, 24. 

Alexander, Montanist, 122 f. 
Alexander, Bishop of Jerusalem, 

library of, 136. 
Alexander Severus, 152, 198. 
Alexandria, martyrdoms at, 271 f. 
pestilence at, 164, 171-4. 
sedition at, 171 f. 
Alphaeus, martyr, 189, 192. 
Ammia of Philadelphia, 118. 
Ammonius, martyr, 273. 
Anencletus, Bishop of Rome, 9, 

77, 79, 82 f. 
Anicetus, Bishop of Rome, 66, 68, 

72, 74 f., 78-80, 83, 145. 
heresy at Rome under, 80, 85 f. 
Anonymous writer against Mon- 
tanism, date and place of, 
117 f. 
his statements about martyrs, 

Anthimus, Bishop of Nicomedia, 

239, 268-70, 273-5. 
Antinous, 3, 90 f. 
Antioch, 215, 219, 221, 271. 
Church of, 270. 
distance of, from Chalcedon, 


Milan, 219. 
Nicomedia, 212 f. ^ 
memorial from citizens of, 

216 f., 222, 231. 
routes to, from Tyana, c., 

Antioch, Synod at, 157. 
Antonine Itinerary: see Itine 

Antoninus Pius, 137, 145 f. 

only one martyrdom under, 

168 f. 
Apocalypse, authorship and date 

of, 43, 51, 95 f. 

Apollinarius, writings of, 149-151. 
Apollonius, Bishop of Ephesus, 

113, 122 f., 126-8,133. 
date of, 122 f. 
Apostles, 26, 28, 33 f., 38 f. 
Apphianus (Epiphanius), martyr, 

185-7, 190, 205 f., 282. 
Arabia, 271. 
Ardabau, 109, 119. 
Ares, martyr, 183 f. 
Aristides and Quadratus, Apolo 

gies of, resemblance of titles 

of, 178. 

volume containing, 178. 
Aristo of Pella, 64. 
Aristotle, 75. 
Armenians, 157. 
Arykanda, inscription at, 223, 

229, 239, 259, 278. 
Asclepiodotus, 125. 
Ashkelon, 183. 

Asia, Diocese of, 213, 215, 225. 
Asia Minor, roads in, 212. 
Asparagium, 235. 
Assemani, S. E., 185, 189 f. 
Asterius Urbanus, 111. 
Astyrius, 36. 
Aube, B., 133. 
Aurelius Victor, 204 f. 
Avircius Marcellus, 117. 

q, 76 f. 

Bardy, G., 110. 

Basilides, 2. 

Basilidians, 62. 

Benson, E. W., 153 f., 158, 175. 

Bernard, J. H., 95 f. 

Bithynia, 216. 



Blastus,washe contemporary with 

Florinus? 177. 
Bonwetsch, N., 113, 123, 125-7, 

129, 133. 
Brandt, S., 237. 
Bright, W., 171, 226. 
Browne, H., 190 f., 193. 
Brundisium, 235, 241. 
Bruttius or Brettius, 43, 53. 
Burkitt, F. C., 90. 
Bury, J. B., 215, 237. 
Butcher, S., 188. 
Byzantium, 219, 222, 241. 
/3i/3XiW, 147, 177, 261. 

Caesarea, 180, 183, 185-8, 193, 
196, 200, 203, 206, 210, 288. 
First edict published at, 186, 

199, 228, 287. 
last martyr at, 209. 
library at, 136, 144. 
Campus Serenus, Battle of, 219, 

224-6, 241 f., 276. 
Cappadocia, 224 f. 

Montanism in, 113. 
Carleton,J.G., 188. 
Carpocrates, 74, 79, 84, 86. < 
the father of the Gnostics, 2, 

76 f. 
Carpocratians, 62, 74 f., 78 f., 85. 

called Gnostics, 75-7. 
Carpus, Acts of, 136 f., 167. 
Carthage, pestilence at, 175. 
Cataeschinites, 112. 
Cataproclans, 112. 
Catholic Epistles, 113, 147. 
Cemeteries, assemblies in, 217, 


Cenabum, 236. 
Cerdon, 85. 

Chalcedon, 213, 215, 221 f. 
Chiliasm : see Millenarianism. 
Christians, persecution of under 

Domitian, 52, 54, 61. 
Chronological errors of Eusebius, 


Chrysophora, 147 f. 
Chrysostom, St., 49. 
Churches standing at Caesarea in 

310, 200, 283. 

Cilicia, Gates of, 212 f., 220, 225 f. 
Cities, memorials from : see Maxi- 

min Daza. 
City let down from heaven, 120f. 

Clement, Bishop of Alexandria, 

10 f., 17, 95. 
Clement, Bishop of Rome, 9, 77, 

79, 83. 
Epistle of, 9 f ., 50, 65, 67, 69, 73, 

82 f. 

Cletus : see Anencletus. 
Clopas, 25, 34-7, 39. 
Colon or Conon, Bishop of 

Hermopolis, 156. 
Commodus, 198. 
Commune Asiae, letter to the, 145, 


Complete years : see o\a errj. 
Constantia, 218, 276. 
Constantine,205, 215,251 f., 254 f. 
at Rome, 218 f. 
flight of, from Nicomedia, 238, 


patron of Lactantius, 238, 241. 
reverse of, near Rome, 240. 
victory of, over Maxentius, 218, 

240 f., 252. 
Corfinium, 235, 241. 
Corinth, beginning of monarchi 
cal episcopacy at, 69. 
Church of, commended for 

orthodoxy, 66 f., 87 f. 
notice of, by Hegesippus, 
parallel to that of Church 
of Jerusalem, 69 f. 
disturbance at, 50, 65, 67, 69. 
Hegesippus at, 64 f. 
origin of heresy in, 70. 
Cornelius, Bishop of Rome, 152-4, 

157, 175. 

Cramer, J. A., 41 ff., 103 f. 
Crispus Caesar, 237. 
Culcianus, 272 f. 
Cureton, W., 179. 
Cyprian, 152-4. 

David, descendants of, 50, 52, 54, 

56, 59-61. 

DeBoor, C., 41f.,48f., 103 f. 
Decapolis, 29. 

Decius, 133, 161, 167, 169, 174. 
Demetrius, Bishop of Alexandria, 


De Soyres, J., 110, 113, 115. 
Desposyni, 11, 26, 33 f., 56, 59-61, 

63 f., 70. 

Didymus : see Domitius. 
Didymus of Alexandria, 110. 



Dindorf, 28. 
Diocletian, 218. 
abdication of, 185-8, 195, 203-6, 


at Rome, 201, 240. 
death of, 253, 265, 275. 
dominions of, 201. 
illness of, 201-3. 
persecution of, 197-210. 

date of commencement of, 

181, 199. 

end of in Palestine, 209. 
First edict in, 181, 199, 228, 

268, 287. 
Second edict in, 200, 268, 


Third edict in, 200. 
Fourth edict in, 202, 205, 

240, 271. 

Fifth edict in, 208 f. 
intermittent, 199-210. 
remission of, in 309, 206-9. 
rigour of, depended on local 

authorities, 200. 
rescript of, in August 301, 201. 
vicennalia of, 192, 201. 
Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, 
letter of, against Germanus, 

164 f., 169, 174. 

letter of, concerning Lucian, 

159, 176. 
letter of, on discipline, 161f., 

letter of, on martyrdom, 155, 

157 f. 

letter of, on the Sabbath, 161 f. 
letters of, Festal, 160-5, 169-74. 
letters of, on Baptism, 159 f. 
letters of, on Sabellianism, 

165 f. 

letters of, on the Schism of 

Novatian, 154-8. 
Paschal Canon of, 161, 164. 
treatise of, On Promises, 166. 
Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, date 

of, 177. 

letters of, 147 f., 177 f., 244. 
Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, 159 f., 

166, 176. 

Disciples of the Lord, 26, 28, 33 f. 
Dittrich, 163. 
Dius, martyr, 273. 
Dodwell, H., 191. 
Domitian, 37, 50 4, 56, 61, 95 f. 

Domitius and Didymus, 161-4, 

169-72, 174. 
Domninus, martyr, 189. 
Druzipara, 241. 
Duruy, V., 203. 
Dyrrhachium, 235. 
i, 163. 
, 6ifSearo, 15 f. 

r h 22, 66, 70-3, 86-8. 

dldKOVlKT), 157 f. 

dta TOVTO, 19, 37. 

5tarpt/3,}v CTroirja^i , 702, 87. 

East, Diocese of the, 224. 
Ebionites, 28. 
Ecstasy, 109, 117-19. 
Egypt, 198, 225. 

martyrs in, 273 f. 
Eleutherus, Bishop of Rome, 66- 

Elias, martyr, 183. 
Empire, division of the, 197. 
Ephesus, St. John at, 51,53,54,64, 

95 f. 

Epiphanius, Bishop of Constantia, 
carelessness of, in quotation, 
74, 78, 127. 
date and place of work on Mon- 

tanism used by, 127. 
mutilation of authorities by, 35, 


quoted the Hypomnemata of 

Hegesippus, 5-11, 14, 73-84. 

unsatisfactory method of citing 

authorities of, 35, 82. 
Epiphanius, martyr : see Apphia- 


Episcopal succession : see Succes 

Ethiopia, 174 f. 
Eubulus, martyr, 209. 
Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, 

at Caesarea till 311, 271. 
Book of Martyrdoms of, 137, 

148, 284. 

Ecclesiastical History of 
Eighth Book of 

appendix to, 265 f., 284. 
date of, 260, 275, 290. 
later additions to, 268-78. 
originally the last, 261. 
unsatisfactory character 

of, 285 f. 
manuscripts of, 243. 



Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, 
Ecclesiastical History of 
Ninth Book of, a supple 
ment, 257-66. 
date of, 255 f., 291. 
traces of revision in, 256 f. 
original end of, 259-66. 
purpose of, 258. 
Syriac version of, 18, 71. 
Tenth Book of, a supple 
ment, 243. 

date of, 243, 255, 291. 
faulty construction of, 254. 
supposed earlier edition of, 


father of Church History, 1, 4. 
habit of, of beginning a book 
with closing words of preced 
ing book, 253, 257, 289. 
honesty of, 245, 252 f., 255. 
in Egypt, 198,271,282. 
libraries used by, 136. 
Martyrs of Palestine of, clause 
inserted in short recension 
of, 280 f., 290. 
corrupt text of passage in 

short recension of, 288. 
date of, 286, 290 f. 
date of long recension of, 

179, 279-283. 
form of dates in, 182 f. 
Greek fragments of long re 
cension of, 185, 190, 199 f., 
inaccuracies of dates in, 189- 


manuscripts of, 289. 
passages in short recension 
of, derived from H. E. viii, 

passages peculiar to short re 
cension of, 281 f., 287-9. 
referred to in the History, 

262 f., 285. 
relation of, to H. E. viii, 279, 

two recensions of, 179 f., 185, 

190, 279-83. 
method of, of paraphrasing 

Hegesippus, 47. 
method of, of using volumes of 

tracts, 137, 145 f., 152, 165. 
omissions of, in quotation, 18 - 
20, 25, 36 f., 65-9, 96 f. 

Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, 
projected work of, de mortibus 

persecutorum, 280 f., 284. 
work of, on Metonic cycle, 188. 

yKaT(i\(KTai, 148. 
ev rauro), 147. 

V TOUTO), 185. 

eVioToXcu, 152 f. 

fVi TOVTOIS, 26, 142, 144. 

7rl TO> aiirS) Xo-yaj, 61. 
?ri dt , 148 f. 
e )ff, 142 f. 

Fabius, Bishop of Antioch, 152-6. 
Fasting, laws of, 129f. 
Faustus, martyr, 173f. 
Feltoe, C. L., 157-9, 162 f., 170, 


Festus, 24. 
Ficker, G., 110. 
Fires at Nicomedia, 268 f. 
Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea, 

113, 119. 

Firmilian, praeses, 199, 206. 
Flavia Domitilla, 43 f., 51. 
Flavian, praeses, 193, 200 f., 287. 
Flavius, 161 f., 170. 
Florinus, 177. 
Friedlander, L., 213. 

Galerius, 203-5, 218, 238,240,268. 
death of, 215, 221, 241, 288. 
dominions of, 213, 215. 
tolration edict of, 209, 213-15, 
232, 241, 246, 251, 263 f., 

believed to be the beginning 

of peace, 214, 259 f., 263 f. 

issued in the name of the 

four emperors, 259 f., 278. 

referred to at the beginning 

of ihe History, 264 f. 
the originator of the persecu 
tion ? 253. 
Gallienus, 161, 163, 174. 

toleration edict of, 161, 172. 
Gallus, 160, 174. 
Gates of Cilicia : see Cilicia. 
Gaul, 237, 240, 242. 
Gaza, 196, 206. 
Gebhardt, 0. von, 133, 167, 223, 

Gergovia, 235. 



Germanus, 163 f., 169. 
Gnosticism, introduced into 

Rome, 77, 80. 

Gnostics, 2 f., 75 f., 90, 129. 
Gobarus, Stephanus, 107. 
Gwatkin, H. M., 95, 115, 129, 174, 

202 f., 205, 226, 232,256. 
Gwynn, J., 200. 

iy, 136. 

Hadrian, 3, 64, 92, 178. 
Harnack, A., 9, 21, 71 f, 79, 81 f., 
85-7, 95 f., 113, 117,122, 135, 

Harris, R., 114, 178. 
Hebrews, Gospel of the, quoted 

by Hegesippus, 8. 
Hefele, C. J., 175. 
Hegesippus, account of Jewish 

heresies by, 40. 
date of, 2, 68, 95, 145. 
date of arrival of, at Rome, 89. 
did he write a second treatise ? 


ends historical sketch of the 
Church of Jerusalem with 
Symeon, 64. 

father of Church History ? 1, 3. 
Hypomnemata of, argument of, 

62 f., 90. 

fragments of, 98-107. 
purpose of, 2-4. 
quoted by Epiphanius, 5-11. 
quoted by Irenaeus, 75 f. 
various texts of, 5-9, 44 f. 
journey of, to Rome, 64-73, 84, 

misinterpretation of, by Euse- 

bius, 24, 28, 38 f. 
Heinichen, F. A., 19, 26. 
Heraclea : see Perinthus. 
Heresies referred to by Hege 

sippus, 58, 62. 
Heresy, recent origin of, 63. 
Hermammon, letter of Dionysius 
of Alexandria to, 161-3, 170, 

Hesychius, Egyptian bishop, 273. 
Hierax, 161 f., 164, 170. 
Hippolytus, 127, 157. 
Canons of, 158. 
Syntagma of, 112. 
works of, 151 f. 
Holmes, Rice, 236. 

Hort, F. J. A., 23. 
Hunziker, 0., 192, 269 f. 
Hyginus, Bishop of Rome, 85, 87. 

Ignatius, 22. 

Images of Christ, 75 f. 

Interpretatio Hebraicorum nomi- 

num, authorship of, 144. 
Irenaeus, 43, 53, 83, 95, 244. 

his list of Roman bishops, 81. 

quotes Hegesippus, 75 f. 

volume containing letters of, 


Italy, persecution in, 197. 
Itinerary, Antonine, 212 f., 219. 
lustum iter, 235. 

toropel, 23. 

James the Just, Bishop of Jerusa 
lem, 1, 3-18, 27, 31 f., 93. 

appointment of, 15-17, 45, 63. 

converts of, 25. 

date of martyrdom of, 24, 28. 
Jerome, St., 1, 144, 153 f., 287. 
Jerusalem, bishops of, 22, 64, 
92 f. 

history of Church of, given by 
Hegesippus, 64. 

library at, 136. 

sieges of, 24, 28, 64. 
Jerusalem , a name of Pepuza, 

110, 120, 122. 
Jewish war, 24, 27 f., 31. 
Jews, heresies of the, 62, 91. 

persecution of the, 52, 54. 

tradition of the, 35, 82. 
John, Egyptian confessor, 281 f. 
John, St., apostle, alleged martyr 
dom of, 63, 96. 

at Ephesus : see Ephesus. 

banishment of : see Patmos. 

death of, 64. 

Joseph, 12-14, 25, 34-7, 39. 
Josephus, 24, 27, 31, 198. 
Judas, 118. 
Jude, grandsons or sons of, 42, 44, 

51, 54 f., 60-4. 
Julian, 209. 

Julius Caesar, 235, 241. 
Jupiter Philius, 231. 
Justin Martyr, 2. 

date of, 145. 

date of Second Apology of, 168. 

MSS. of Apologies of, 146. 



Justin Martyr, origin of Euse- 

bius s mistakes about, 168 f. 
Second Apology of, quoted by 

Eusebius, 146 f. 

writings of, 145-7. 

Justinian, Code of, 192. 

Khatha, martyr, 184, 206. 
Kat en, 140. 

/caraXoyoy, 78-80, 84-6. 
KaretXejcrat, 148. 

Lactantius, 181, 185, 187 f., 211- 

13, 215 f., 224 f., 231. 
at Rome, 241. 
at Sardica, 242. 
De lustitia of, 238. 
departure from Nicomedia, 287- 

9, 242. 

in Gaul, 241 f. 
Institutiones of, 237 f. 
mistakes of, 238 f. 
supposed mistake of, 192. 
teacher of rhetoric, 237. 
tutor of Crispus, 237 f. 
Laodiceans, 156 f. 
Lee, S., 289. 
Legio Fulminata, 151. 
Libraries to which Eusebius had 

access, 136, 144. 
Licinius, 215, 222, 226, 241 f., 246- 

8, 255 f., 276, 278, 283. 
at Rome, 218. 
contest of, with Constantine, 

244, 251, 255 f., 259. 
dilatory tactics of, 226. 
letter of, issued at Nicomedia, 

224, 238, 251 f., 256 f., 291. 
marriage of, 218 f. 
treaty of, with Maximin, 215, 

217 f., 221 f. 
victories of, over Maximin, 219, 

224, 241, 246, 276. 
Lightfoot, J. B., 9, 10, 18 f., 21, 
43,57, 74, 79-81,86,96, 117, 
144,152, 167, 179 f., 255, 280, 
282 f., 284 f., 286 f. 
Linus, Bishop of Rome, 9, 77, 79, 


Little Labyrinth, 125. 
Lucian, letter of Dionysius of 

Alexandria about, 159, 176. 
Lucian, martyr, 218, 239, 269 f., 

Lucian, martyr, Apology of, 218. 
letter of, 268, 270. 

Aenroi , 266. 
Adyor, 262. 
\6yos *areVi (e^O, 21 f., 26, 36, 

51 f., 92 f., 268. 

XvcTfis ya/icoi/, 127 f. 

M Giffert, A. C., 1, 21, 86, 131-3, 

181, 257, 273. 

Mansionibus geminatis , 219. 
Marcellina, 74 f., 79-81, 83, 85 f., 

Marching, rate of, 211 f., 216, 

219-21, 235 f. 
Marcion, 86. 
Marcus Aurelius, 132, 137, 145 f., 

167 f. 

Martianus, 133. 
Martyrdom of Polycarp, 55, 137 f., 

165, 167. 
Martyrs, honour given to, 63. 

prerogative of, 123. 
Martyrs of Lyons, 132. 
Mary, B.V., l3f., 35. 
Mason, A. J., 187, 192, 200, 202, 

219, 225 f., 232-4, 283. 
Maxentius, 218, 240, 276. 
Maximian, 203, 205, 240. 
abdication of, 185, 240. 
author of the Fourth Edict, 202. 
public memorials of, destroyed, 

Maximilla,109f., 113, 119f., 127f., 


oracle of, 111. 

Maximin Daza, 185 f., 205, 213, 
215, 218-20, 241, 267, 276, 
280 f., 283, 285 f., 291. 
army of, collected in Cappadocia, 

225 f. 

at Nicomedia : see Nicomedia. 
birthday of, 191, 206, 210. 
death of, 225-9, 256. 
defeat of : see Campus Serenus. 
did not persecute at first, 187, 

206, 214 f. 

dominions of, 215, 225. 
letter of, to Sabinus, 217. 
memorials from cities to, 216 f., 

222 f., 229-31, 239. 
name of, in the edict of 
Galerius, 259 f., 278. 





Maximin Daza, pagan hierarchy 
of, 206, 208 f.. 230 f., 276, 

of, regarding religion. 

209, 230. 

rebuilds temples, 206, 208. 
rescript of, set up on pillars, 

197 f., 222 f., 228 f., 231. 
restoration of paganism by, 

206, 208. 
resumes persecution in Egypt, 


secrecy of movements of, 222. 
toleration edict of, 189, 197, 

210, 224-7. 

treaty of, with Licinius, 215, 

217 f., 221. 

Meletius, martyr, 198. 
Meletius, schismatic bishop, 272 f. 
Melito of Sardis, date of Apology 

of, 176. 

works of, 148 f. 
Menandrianists, 62. 
Menology quoted by Matthaei, 

16, 44. 

Metonic cycle, 188. 
Metrodorus, Acts of, 136 f., 167. 
Milan, Constantine and Licinius 

at, 218 f., 241. 

distance of, from Antioch, 219. 
edict of, 218, 224, 247, 251 f., 

256, 259, 291. 

Military road in Asia Minor, 212 f. 
Millenarianism, 120 f., 165. 
Milligan, W., 90. 
Miltiades, Montanist leader in 

Phrygian Pentapolis, 117f. 
Milvian Bridge, Battle of, 218, 


Mommsen, T., 192, 243. 
Monarchy, various opinions of 

Montanists on, 112. 
Montanism, asceticism in, 123- 

attitude of, towards martyr 

dom, 130-5. 

first steward of, 112, 124. 
in Rome, 132, 151. 
instances of difference between 
Phrygian and African, 117- 

later prophets of, 112f. 
local centre of, 109, 120. 
Millenarianism of, 120. 


Montanism, not homogeneous, 


oracles of, 110 f., 121-3, 128-30. 
origin of, 109, 151. 
penitential discipline of, 122 f. 
place of women in, 119 f. 
prophetic succession in, 118. 
teaching of, on fasting, 129. 

on marriage, 127 f. 
true method of investigating, 


virgins in, 119, 128. 
Montanists, a majority among 

Phrygian Christians, 134. 
errors of, 111. 
Montanus, 109 f., 1 13, 124 f., 127 f., 

Morin, G., 158. 

, 142 f., 150, 170 f., 176. 

Natalius, 125. 

Nazoraeans, 6, 28 f. 

Nepos, 165. 

Nero, 37. 

Nerva, 51, 53-5, 95 f. 

Nestorius, 49. 

New prophecy : see Montanism. 

Nicephorus, 71. 

Nicomedia, 186, 201, 212 f., 216, 

218, 221, 226. 
distance of, from Antioch, 

Chalcedon, and Tyana, 213. 
edict issued at, 213. 
fire at, 268 f. 
Lactantius at, 237 f. 
Licinius at, 224. 
martyrdoms at, 239, 268 f. 
Maximin at, 216f., 218f.,221f., 

224, 229 f. 
memorial from citizens of, 217, 

229-31, 239. 
rescript issued at, 201. 
Nilus, Egyptian bishop, 273. 
Notes in manuscripts, 144, 147 f., 

177, 244. 

Novatian or Novatus, 155-7, 159. 
letters on the schism of, 152-4, 
ia, 251. 

Oracles, 30, 34. 

see also Montanism. 
Ordinances, collection of imperial, 
248 f., 251 f., 257. 



Origen, 49, 144, 157 f. 

letters of, 22, 36, 136, 148. 

library of, 144. 
Orleans, 236. 
Otto, J. C. T. de, 146. 

oXaerij, 0X01 MVCS, 197-9, 214. 228, 

267 f. 
a/3Xmff, 6-9, 45. 

Pachyrnius, Egyptian bishop, 273. 

Pagan hierarchy: see Maximin 

Palestine, last martyrs in, 209, 

Palinpdia : see Galerius, tolera 
tion edict of. 

Pamphilus, 194 f., 210, 273, 282. 
imprisonment of, 195 f., 199. 
library of, 136. 

Pantaenus, 22. 

Panther, James, 35-7. 

Papias, 49, 95 f. 

Papylus, Acts of, 136 f., 167. 

Passion of Christ in accounts of 
martyrs, 57. 

Patmos, St. John in, 51, 53-6, 

Paul, St., 9, 80. 

Paul, martyr, 206. 
see also Peleus. 

Paul of Samosata, 49. 

Paulinus, Bishop of Tyre, 243, 255. 

Peleus, Egyptian bishop, 273. 

Peleus (Paul), martyr, 183. 

Pell a, flight to, and return from, 
28-34, 50, 72. 

Pentapolis, Phrygian, 117f. 

Pepuza, 109, 119-22. 

Peraea, 29, 33 f. 

Perinthus, 212, 219. 

Perpetua, Acts of, 114. 

Pestilence under Decius and 
Gallus, 164, 171-5. 

Peter, St., 9, 57, 80. 

Peter Apselamus (Absalom), mar 
tyr, 183, 189, 194. 

Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, 

267 f., 272-5. 
letter of, 272. 

Phileas, Bishop of Thmuis, 272-4. 
letters of, 272. 

Philemon, presbyter of Rome, 
159 f. 

Philip, daughters of, 118. 

Philo, writings of, 138-45. 
Philoromus, martyr, 272 f. 
Phrygia, 271. 
Pichon, R., 237. 
Pierius, 49. 
Pilate, 75, 198. 

Acts of, 218, 230, 267. 
Pilgrims Road in Asia Minor, 213. 
Pinytus, Bishop of the Cnossians, 


Pionius, Acts of, 136 f., 167. 
Pius, Bishop of Rome, 74, 84 f . 
Plato, 75. 
Polycarp, 146. 

interview of, with Marcion, 86. 

martyrdom of, 55, 136 f., 167. 
Pontus, 271. 

Diocese of, 213, 215, 225. 
Post, Imperial, 213, 219, 221. 
Praxeas, 111, 132. 
Primus, Bishop of Corinth, 66, 69 f. 
Primus, martyr, 183 f. 
Prisca or Priscilla, 109 f., 113, 119, 

Procopius, martyr, 191 f., 199 f. 

Latin Passion of, 192 f. 
Prophetic succession, 118. 
Prophets, Montanistic, preroga 

tive of, 123. 

Protevangelium of James, 12 f., 35. 
Publius, Bishop of Corinth, 178. 
Purser, L. C., 212, 235. 
Pythagoras, 75. 
mJXii/, 18f., 32 f. 
Trapa TaCra, 140. 
TrapeKoracns , 119. 
rrpbs Teppavov, 163 f. 
npos TOVTOIS, 140, 142, 144, 148 f. 
Trporepos, 147. 

-i, 22, 26, 36 f., 94. 

Quadratus, apologist, to whom 
was his Apology presented? 
was he Quadratus the bishop ? 


see also Aristides. 
Quintilla, 113. 
Quintillians, 119. 

Ramsay, Sir W. M., 113, 134,212 f., 

220, 225. 
Relatives of the Lord: see 




Romanus, martyr, 189, 192. 
Rome, 201 f., 218. 

arrival of heretics at, 85 f. 
Hegesippus s history of Church 
of, ended with Anicetus, 
85 f., 89. 

parallel with that of Church 

of Jerusalem, 80,85, 89 f., 92. 

list of bishops of, by Hege- 

sippus, 77-80, 88 f 
used by Eusebius, 82. 
why not quoted by him, 81. 
list of bishops of, by Irenaeus, 


Montanism in, 132, 151. 
Routh, M. J., 218, 270, 272. 
Rufinus, 2, 18, 53, 70 f., 91, 218. 
Ruinart, T., 133, 193, 272, 283. 
Rusticus, 168. 

Sabellianism, 111, 165 f. 
Sabinus, letter of, 214, 254. 
letter of Maximin to, 217-21, 

223 f., 227-9, 232-4, 247. 
Salaries of clergy, 124 f. 
Salmon, G., 113. 
Salona, Palace at, 203. 
Sanday, W., 95. 
Sardica, 213, 215, 221, 241. 
Saturnilians, 62. 
Saturninus, 2. 
Saturus, 114. 
Schurer, E., 138-44. 
Schwartz, E., 5, 7, 32, 91, 149, 

156, 199, 243-55, 258, 265 f., 

268, 275, 281-3. 
Sens, 236. 

Septimius Severus, 167. 
Severus, Emperor, 205. 
Silas, 118. 

Silvanus, Bishop of Emesa, 273-5. 
Silvanus, Bishop of Gaza, 196, 209, 

273, 282. 
Simonians, 62. 
Smyrnaeans, letter of the : see 

Poly carp, martyrdom of. 
Soter, Bishop of Rome, 66-8, 72, 


Stephen, Bishop of Rome, 159 f. 
Stroth. 19. 
Succession of bishops, 63, 70, 77. 

of prophets, 117 f. 
Susa, Battle of, 241. 
Swete, H. B., 96. 

Symeon, Bishop of Jerusalem, 
1S-26, 32-4, 40, 54, 56-61, 
64, 93. 

accusers of, 40, 56, 60, 62. 
election of, 15, 19, 32 f., 50, 

55, 63, 93. 

electors of, 19, 26, 34, 38, 63. 
Symmachus, quoted by Hege- 

sippus, 8. 
Synods regarding the Schism of 

Novatian, 152 f., 157,175. 
Syria, 219, 225, 230. 

cruyypa/zjua, 261. 

OVVTJTTTO, 137, 152. 

Tarsus, 212 f., 225. 

distance of, from Tyana, 220. 
road from, to Tyana, 220. 
Taurus mountains, 220, 224-6 

passes of, fortified, 224 f. 
Tax removed by Maximin, 221. 
Telesphorus, Bishop of Rome, 169. 
Temples, rebuilding of, 230. 
Tertullian, 4, 51, 53. 

counted as main authority for 

Montanism, 108. 
De Ecstasi of, 126. 
did not admit absolving power 

of martyrs, 123. 
did not hold the Phrygian view 

of the Parousia, 120 f. 
did not recognize a prophetic 

succession, 118. 

does not mention Pepuza, 120. 
influence of, on African Mon 
tanism, 114-16. 
on unpardonable sin, 123, 
protest of, against women 
exercising clerical functions, 
Thebaid, 207, 210. 

martyrs of the, 270-4. 
Thebuthis, 25 f., 58, 63, 70, 77, 80, 


Themiso, Montanist, 113, 124,133. 
Theodoras, Egyptian bishop, 273. 
Theodosia, martyr, 193, 196. 
Theodotians, 125. 
Theodotus, a banker, 125. 
Theodotus, first steward of the 
New Prophecy, 112, 124, 131. 
Theotecnus, 222, 231. 
Thmuis, 273. 
Tiberius, 198. 



Timolaus (Timothy), martyr, 195. 

Timothy, martyr, 195f. 

see also Timolaus. 
Toleration, edicts of: see Gale- 
rius, Gallienus, Maximin, 

Tradition of the Jews, 35-7, 82. 
Trajan, 37, 54, 56, 64. 
Trier, 238, 242. 
Turin, Battle of, 241. 
Turner, C. H., 17, 24, 92 f , 182, 

221, 228. 
Tyana, 212 f., 220, 224. 

distance of, from Tarsus, 220. 
Tymion, 110. 

Tyrannion, Bishop of Tyre, 273 f. 
Tyre, 228, 271. 

inscription at, 223. 

panegyric at, 251, 254 f. 
Tyrrell, R. Y., 235. 
Tzurulum, 219, 241 f. 
ras 8ia.Tpi(Bas eVotaro, 73, 87. 
/iOf, 261. 
rwv aj/oorepw, 74, 84. 

Ulpian, martyr, 281 f. 
Urban, praeses, 186, 196 f., 199, 
202, 205 f., 280. 

1, 10. 
i, 1013, 82. 

Valentma, martyr, 184, 206. 

Valentinus, 85 f. 

Valerian, 160, 164 f., 169 f., 173 f. 

Valois, 2, 19, 39, 61, 167, 272. 
Verona, Battle of, 241. 
Vespasian, 50, 52, 59-61. 
Vicennalia of Diocletian, 192, 200. 
Virgin, a description of the 

Church of Jerusalem, 19, 37- 

9, 69. 
Virgins among the Montanists, 

119, 128. 

Visions of Montanists, 1 14-16, 119. 
Volumes of tracts used by Euse- 

bius, the principle of the 

formation of, 166. 

Westcott, B. F., 255 f., 284. 
Wolseley, Lord, 236. 

Xystus, Bishop of Rome, 159 f., 

Year, beginning of, 221, 227 f. 
Years, complete : see o\a en/, 
of persecution, 181-4, 194-7. 
relation of, to years A. D., 

regnal, 182. 

Zacchaeus, martyr, 189, 192. 

Zahn, Theodor, 4, 9, 17, 19, 24, 
26 f., 35 f., 38 f., 44, 68, 71, 
78, 80, 83, 86-8, 91, 93. 

Zenobius, martyr, 273 f. 

Zocer and James, 42, 44 f., 54-6. 

Zoticus of Otrous, 118. 

Oxford : Horace Hart, M.A., Printer to the University